The statute of limitations has run out on Michael Schottey. More than a day and a half have passed and he has posted elsewhere and here but not to the issue. Therefore I declare that he concedes all points above and he admits he stands in error. He may post an apology.
I was not aware you were here. Far be it from me to neglect your presence.
Satire aside, most of the posting I've done has been between classes and on breaks from homework. I believe the questions I've been asked are more involved than just a few minutes of banter.
Tonight however is a night off, so I would be willing to spend some time on the matter of Holy Communion. However, I am confused, as often I am in these packed forums, exactly what questions you're all asking. So...GM, or others. Please restate the question and I will do my humble best to answer in a timely matter.
Finally, to "Mass Guy" who has asked me time and again to (in layman's terms) "put up or shut up." I feel as if my former words are sufficient. In his comment (the 5th by proper count), he declared that I (and just about everyone I know) to not be truly Lutheran by the virtue of not receiving the Lord's supper every Sunday.
Also, I would further ask, that if things are not being handled "in a timely matter" perhaps a better method would be emailing me. Although I am not hesitant to put my feelings in public, email is a simpler way of conversing, rather that wading through the talk of hippies and crocks.
My email address can be found on my website, The Shepherd's Voice, which is linked on Bailing Water.
My question, asked repeatedly of you, is what does it take to make the Gospel into a law. Find my previous posts for my further comments on this question. There you will see that I want to know what you think constitutes attaching a rule to the Gospel, and how this is different from doing things based on what they are.
You knew what the questions were before when you asked for more time. Why should everyone now restate them? This looks like a sad stall tactic by someone who knows he's been beaten but who's ego won't allow him to admit that.
Thank you for telling me what I know and don't know and thank you very much for searching my heart, since you know me so well, and telling me what my motives were.
No, there are 200+ posts and multiple people asking me multiple things, some of which I tried to answer, some of which apparently I've missed.
Thank you RNN (sincerely) for taking the time to restate your question.
And, pardon me, but my life (and my ego) do not revolve around this blog or any other.
A small comment to you as well, thank you for providing this outlet. I would urge you--as I often try but fail--to worry more about taking the time to correctly expound on your views, rather than just proving to others that you are right.
To God be the glory!
(to others, don't worry, i'm working on it--the coffee pot is on, don't wait up Martha!)
Let me add a little heat and a little light to this discussion. Mr. Schottey, if you are so pressed for time and if your life does not revolve around this blog (and heaven help anyone whose does) then perhaps you shouldn't so cavalierly post and spout your unsubstantiated charges and uninformed opinions and if you would respond to the questions put to you and not ignore them but continue to post and spin off in all sorts of other directions then perhaps you wouldn't find yourself so swamped.
GM, it would seem you have a personal angst against Schottey...according to Matt. 18, you should take it to private communication instead of trying to embarrass him here in public.
A college student who is married, working and carrying a full load should be given a bit of grace. Of all the MLC students, he's actually taking time to dialogue--ease up a bit. And no, I don't know him personally--so no bias on my part.
Let the older generation lead by example--being overly harsh on the younger generation won't give you what you want.
Thank you for your "patience" I however wonder greatly at your insistence that I hurry the matter and then (to GM) call my opinions unsubstantiated and uninformed.
If you would like me to be more hurried then I shall speak more off the cuff (as I did the other night while I was at work away from my library)...
if you would like me to be more "informed", citing more sources and substantiating my claims with more than just that which I remember from classes or my reading, using actual in-text referencing, then I will take more time (as I did tonight, spending most of my night, not in a sad tactic of stalling, but rather studying and reading on the matter)
All that being said my response is found on my website:
theshepherdsvoice.blogspot.com
primarily, because it is much easier to type as an admin than as a commenter.
secondarily, because I would like you to judge me on a bigger and more cohesive body of my writings than simple snippets as I try to respond to many people concerning many topics
thirdly, I will sleep better knowing SOMEONE is reading my site these days :-)
I would ask that you may comment there, but responses to each other should be saved for here. My site is meant to be many things, but not polemical nor a place for arguing
I read your post. You gave the same answers you gave here before. You are still arguing against points no one made. No one has made a law of frequency. BTW, if a congregation only offers the Sacrament once or twice a month, they are making a law of frequency for their people by not offering them Christ's body and blood on the "off" weeks, regardless of who desires it.
It would be helpful to back up your words from Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions, as most have done here. We do not subscribe unconditionally to Walther or Chemnitz, or even to the other writings of Luther.
See mav's comment from 11-26 at 12:11. This speaks more clearly than I.
It would be helpful to your scholarship to take out all the "I believes". It sounds terribly pompous and arrogant. Back up your positions, if you can, but to use what you believe as some sort of proof is childish. I appreciate that you are still a student and will hopefully learn some humility and to rely on something other than your own ego in the future.
In this debate, you were soundly beaten by those opposing you, which you've now shown clearly by only saying the same things on your own blog that you have already said here and not answering questions put to you.
Though you are a student, you are not the only one who is busy. Yet others answer questions put to them and do it in a more humble way than by directing traffic to their own websites.
If I were Schottey, I wouldn't even bother with responding to these people because nothing you say will be okay.
You try to explain your life situation when you are accused of basically hiding from posting and then everyone whines that they are "busy" too. You explain why you posted on your site and you are called a shameless "self-promotor."
The ironic thing is that all the wussies who are coming after you can't even use their names. They have your name though and it would seem are stalking you on the internet while they hide under their anon or SO or MG or whatever.
It is because of people like them that I use my initials because it would seem that I am not as brave as you and the thought of those morons stalking me is beyond creepy.
Keep it up Mr. Schottey, not everyone is judging you as harshly (or is a Pharisee) as some of the poeple in this thread.
2) I quoted the Small and Large Catechisms and the augsburg confession
I also referenced an exegetical look at both 1 Corinthians and John 6:53
3) You can call me foolish or incorrect all you want, but please stop calling my pride, my ego, or my narcissism into question. a) you don't know me; b)you don't know my movtives; c) If you do know me you should be pointing out my "sins" in love, not in an effort to make yourself look more mature at my expense. (trust me its not working)
Lastly, what I wrote, I did so because it specifically answered the questions in this forum, I drew heavily from the answers I already gave but took the the time to show where I had gotten them.
I find the greatest little morsel of joy in the fact that I am a extremely loud proponent of every-sunday communion yet my ego, confessionalism, my education, and my courage has been called into question simply because I refuse to condemn to pietism those who do not.
The old questions I have answered as sufficiently as I could, my apologies if you consider it lacking. I will not continue to answer them again and again. If I have missed a question or new questions pop up. Let me know and I will do my best for those as well.
May it continue to be said that all our actions are done and all our words are said out of love for HIM who loved us first and out of love for each other.
You have no answers for all the WE_S false doctrines because there are no answers. You have been soundly beaten by better people. You are just too arrogant to admit it. SO and MG have repudiated you again and again. You simply show that you do not value the Mass or that you do not have the courage to catechize. Either way there is no hope for you.
Wait- I didn't just write that. It was just what I expect to be written soon.
"Wait- I didn't just write that. It was just what I expect to be written soon.
Even sadder"
I agree it is sad because the very people who claim Mr. S. is "hiding" are doing the exact same things themselves. Honestly, I've learned little from them, yet they hold themselves in high esteem. Who has the ego? Let me say, in this case, it's not Mr. S and that is clear for everyone to see.
Pretty predictable. Young Schottey (MS) does not respond, and "Jennifer" (which will be our name for this nasty poster who never addresses the argument at hand) jumps in and speaks for young Schottey. Oh, well, you gotta love free speech.
No, MS you did not respond, how incredible that you claim
"I quoted the Small and Large Catechisms and the Augsburg confession
I also referenced an exegetical look at both 1 Corinthians and John 6:53"
Unbelievable. Now first of all you did not do any of the above in your posts, let alone answering any of the questions put to you in answer to your charges, let alone your so called exegetical look at 1 Corinthians 11 in which you said the Lord said, "do this," and "often," ergo "do this often." How laughable, how Marcionite, as I showed you from the actual text. You did not understand the text, nor, - and I wasn’t waiting for it – admit your error.
And it was others who quoted the LC and AC for you in the above posts. Yes, you quoted the Catechism in your little essay – which also does not address the questions put to you because of your unsubstantiated charges of legalism against the words of me and others (by the way you cannot slander a set of initials, your error is against the words and not me). And by the way, saying "I quoted" etc. proves nothing, as Luther said, Satan can quote the Scriptures for his purposes.
I find it ironic that this whole discussion was initiated by a so-called test to see how Lutheran one is. How absurd. And so the so-called "Mass Guy" posted his "test," a presumptuous task, but indeed one that did define Lutheranism as do the Lutheran Confessions.
So you are wrong MS, there is no legalism in the words of the infamous Mass Guy. To simply say you proved it by your saying you did is, again, laughable. He said a Lutheran is one "who attends" a church which offers (note, a receving word) the evangelically restored mass every Lord’s Day.
So what is a Lutheran church, well, young Schottey, for that you would go to the Book of Concord. And what does the BOC say "we" Lutherans do, who do "our churches" do? Your assignment, buy a BOC and read AC XXIV and AP XXIV. "Every Lord’s Day." This is what Lutheran churches do, not because they say "you have to" but because of the command and promise of God, this is what they do. But, using your logic you say that the Confessors are legalists.
Now, let me propose a hypothetical. Suppose a WELS church baptizes people, and the pastor believes correctly about it, but does not so catechize and preach that people desire baptism, and people delay and even ignore Baptism. Is this a Lutheran Church? I'll answer for you. No. In this regard it is not Lutheran, for this is not what Lutherans do.
So, if a church body communes people, occasionally, and its pastor's have a marginal understanding of the Lord's Supper, well, like the WELS, but does not practice "as our churches do" is this a Lutheran Church in this respect. No. (This let alone the subborn resistence of the practice in so many churches.)
I posed a hypothetical
"If a congregation is sufficiently catechized to be offered the Blessed Sacrament on the first and third Sundays of the month, is it not sufficiently catechized to be offered it every Lord's Day, on festivals and when people ask for it?
And so conversely, if a congregation is not sufficiently catechized to be offered the Blessed Sacrament "every Lord's Day" is it sufficiently catechized to be offered it at all?"
Let me draw the conclusion for you. This is where the WELS is, save a couple enlightened pastors and churches. WELS says its people need more catechization to move to every Lord's Day. Fine, I agree. And so the converse is true. They are not properly catechized to be offered the Sacrament at all. Ask, as I have many, many times, WELS people why a church should not offer the Sacrament every Sunday and you will hear the same old reasons over and over again, (not special, take for granted, don’t need it etc.) which tell you they are not properly catechized.
So this in this regard the WELS is not Lutheran. Oh, the time issue, it’s been 157 years.
Finally, you say you answered questions but you didn't, you claim to take exegetical looks at the text which were jokes, you take umbrage at the comments that you are dodging the questions (as I said, if you are "too busy" to support your charges and assertions, remain silent) all of which suggests that either you are delusional or a typical WELS pastor track student, I fear the latter.
Here is the problem as I see it. You have interjected yourself into this conversation by accusing those who advocate a return to offering communion every service as making a law of the Gospel. Then, when asked to substantiate that accusation (by explaining who has said that and what it even means) you say, "I don't have time right now. I'll get to it when I have time." That isn't how it works. You don't make the accusation unless you can prove it. Everyone is busy. I won't fault you for being busy too. But if you are too busy to defend your statements or substantiate your accusations, then you shouldn't make them.
I did not respond that I was too busy or unable, I simply refused to abide by the "statute of limitations" that I was arbitrarily placed under.
GM,
I own a book of Concord, I reference those same words when I wrote my "little essay"
However Luther, who wrote those words did not mean them to be prescriptive, if he did he would not have advised the Lutherans in Wittenburg to suspend the sacrament in the time of Carlstadt.
"I did not respond that I was too busy or unable, I simply refused to abide by the "statute of limitations" that I was arbitrarily placed under."
I misunderstood you then. I'm sorry. But my point still stands. Remain silent until you are ready to defend your statements or substantiate your accusations. I know you know this because you've admonished others to do the same. So, out of love, I return the admonishment.
"I did not respond that I was too busy or unable, I simply refused to abide by the "statute of limitations" that I was arbitrarily placed under."
"Arbitrarily?" Did you not read my ruling? 1. You were given sufficient time to respond. 2. Alegations bring with them obligations - proof. 3. You were continuing to post, showing you had time.
I, unlike GM and several others on this board, actually took the time to read the essay you wrote. I thought it was well-researched and well-written.
Try not to take the jerks on this board personally. Hey, at least it will teach you the patience that you'll need one day as a pastor to deal with the jerks in your own congregation.
My final thoughts, on the matter is that I agree with Mass Guy and GM on the subject of the frequency of communion. I believe we should strive as a synod to reach a time and place where our members desire it constantly and our pastors offer it as often as possible.
I however believe the methods in which they (and others) are trying to achieve this is to make themselves look "more confessional" and "more Lutheran" at the expense of others. Their personal attacks serve as a testimony.
I have written what I believe to be a clear and consise testimony. If you disagree, feel free to improve upon it or suggest improvements. I however will not continue to defend myself because I seek not to make myself look better in their eyes nor to the blogsphere in general.
"I, unlike GM and several others on this board, actually took the time to read the essay you wrote. I thought it was well-researched and well-written."
I'm pretty sure everyone who has commmented on it read it--at least as sure as you are that we didn't.
And what people have said in response is legitimate--Mr. Schottey is rebutting imaginary arguments, he never explains how saying "this is what Lutherans do; why aren't we doing what Lutherans do?" makes a LAW of the Gospel, and he ignores the very practical point, made repeatedly here, that people can't commune as often as they desire to, if the Lord's Supper isn't offered at every service.
"I however believe the methods in which they (and others) are trying to achieve this is to make themselves look "more confessional" and "more Lutheran" at the expense of others. Their personal attacks serve as a testimony."
This isn't the first time you've said this. I do not understand where you get the idea that people who defend good Lutheran doctrine and practices are doing so to make themselves look better. How can you know this? Have you been told this? And if this is just something you made up yourself, well, I guess we'll never understand it, because you've never explained it and now you've promised not to say another word about it. Convicting someone wihtout showing them the proof is what put you in the hot seat in the first place. I sincerely hope that for your sake, and your future congreagation's sake, you eventually can sort this out.
"I do not understand where you get the idea that people who defend good Lutheran doctrine and practices are doing so to make themselves look better."
I'm guessing that it's comments like, "You're not a true Lutheran unless you celebrate the Mass weekly." That comment has nothing to do with education or edification. It serves simply to say, "I'm a good Lutheran, you're not." That's exactly what Mr. Schottey was talking about.
I'm not Jennifer. I asked who Jennifer was eons ago and I was agitated by your and Jo's abuse of Jennifer, but I'm not Jennifer.
But, believe as you will. My apologies to Jennifer...no idea who you are, but I'm sorry that my words are being attributed to you. I would say my real name, but the idea of Mass Guy/Jo floating around the internet blasting my name (which is fairly unique--much moreso than "Jennifer"..I'm the only one in the Synod yearbook with my name, I think) all over the place.
Anyways, MG, you're just mad because you know what Matt 18 says and you know I'm right. You have a axe to grind--fine, but grind it in private.
Jesus wouldn't have used the term jerk, he would have used something more along the lines of "whitewashed tombs, snakes, brood of vipers," that sort of thing.
Jesus wouldn't have used the term jerk, he would have used something more along the lines of "whitewashed tombs, snakes, brood of vipers," that sort of thing.
Absolutely! (as I said, souls in need of the law).
I just checked, approximately 61% of the comments after the can of worms, if I can be so indelicate, of the discussion about the Lord's Supper was begun are extraneous to that point. Well, now 62% (sorry). Can we continue that discussion? It seems that Michael is being asked to respond to some specific questions and I would like to hear his perspective, not just the "other side" if it can be termed that. Take your time, though. I have lots.
I chose to write in that medium because the area in which the software gives me to write was more sufficient than a comment box. Auto saving was also a factor
New blogger here - What makes mass/communion/Lord's Supper valid? Are all Lutheran masses valid sacraments even if one is ELCA, LCMS, WELS etc.? If a Reformed/Protestant service uses the words of institution but doesn't believe in Real Presence, is that what invalidates it? Are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox masses valid? Maybe valid isn't the correct term...
I attend a WELS congregation (previous LCMS after coming from Reformed). After a recent Sunday School series on the liturgy, I'm beginning to have concerns about the pietistic influences on the Wisconsin Synod. What makes a church "confessional"? Does it have to be confessional to have a valid mass?
I apologize for the number of questions, but they seem to be related to this thread. Just curious.
"How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins."
It is not the faith of the individual nor the faith of the pastor presiding that merits the Body and Blood of our Lord, but rather the innocent suffering and death of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Many of the current Lord's Supper practices are the direct result of the Age of Pietism and other concurrent causes like The 30 year's war, rationalism, etc.
If a person denies the real presence, ie the reformed, they continue to take a "valid" sacrament, however the body and blood is not for their benefit but for their judgment. (1 cor 11)
If a person denies the true meaning of the sacrament, such as the belief that it is a sacrifice we do for God, ie the Catholic (RCC and EO), the same applies. The sacrament is still a sacrament, but it is not taken correctly and for benefit.
Michael is incorrect. The Reformed do not have a valid Sacrament. They do not have the word, for they change the word "is" to mean "not is". The power of the Word is in the meaning. The Reformed and most Protestants teach that the body and blood are not present under the bread and wine. For example with the LDS or any non Trinity cult's baptism, though using the Trinitarian formula they have no baptism because they change the "name" of God, they change the Word.
No Word, no Sacrament. And again it is not the sounds but the meaning. Otherwise it is pure magic, i.e. saying the correct sounds (and we would have to consecrate and baptize in Greek).
"They do not have the word, for they change the word "is" to mean "not is". The power of the Word is in the meaning."
I strongly disagree. The power of the Word is not in the meaning or who is handling...that would make God impotent. To think that mere humans by their own simple minds could strip the Word of its power is ridiculous.
Humans may twist the meaning, they may strip it--but the Word is still the "sword of the Spirit" despite the ways of men and the Holy Spirit IS working, even if us human beings do not realize it.
To think that we humans have the power to hinder the Holy Spirit is crazy--we have no such power.
For example, an ELCA pastor who baptizes a baby in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and uses the earthly element of water completes a valid baptism, even though he/she holds to false teaching. The Sacrament is not dependent on the person applying it...it's bigger than the person. As long as the Word is used with the elements, the Sacraments are valid.
You have confused the power of the instituting word with benefit of the Sacrament.
You find fault with the words "it is not the sounds but the meaning." I wonder why. Please explain. But I do have my suspicions because the WELS of late has been saying things close to the belief that the words act as magic, for example on the Q/A when they write that infants do not understand the Word, but we have baptism. So you can see why I wonder why an MLC student would have a problem with that truth.
Let me make it simple. The Reformed confess when they celebrate the Sacrament "This is not the body of Christ." If you were to approach the pastor of such a church and asked him what was in his hand, he would say "Bread." (And we can begin another thread on why receptionism is so dangerous.)
Why do you think it was such a tragedy for the Lutheran Church when the Union distribution formula, "Jesus said...." was instituted? (Incredibly used in one WELS church that I know.)
I have friends who are PCA and the above wording is NOT what they use.
Are you stating that is the actually working they say during distribution or are you saying this is what they are "literally" saying because of their doctrinal beliefs.
FWIW, my friends who are PCA believe a "spiritual" presence and paedocommunion based off of covenant theology.
I think we need to be really careful in using the term "Reformed"...I know it offends my PCA friends to be lumped into a group they don't belong to. It's like using "Lutheran" to describe ALL Lutherans, it's hardly an accurate term.
Say the Reformed speak the words of institution exactly, does it make it valid? Maybe someone could point me to a place in the BOC to clarify. My primary concern is I'd like to receive the benefits of a valid sacrament, but, as this wanders a bit and I apologize, what of the Wisconsin view of the priesthood of all believers and the office of the ministry too. If a layperson or a vicar administers it, is it valid? "IF" WELS has an incorrect view of the office of the ministry, does it invalidate the sacrament? This is very interesting to me -- and important, not just a theological exercise -- so I appreciate your input.
Luther also instructed many following the reformation that both their baptisms and the mass they had been receiving was valid.
I have problem with your statement "it is not the sounds but the meaning" for the following.
Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord
*N.B. about context...speaking of Zwinglians"
"19] for they [the Smalcald Articles] declare: The bread and wine in the Holy Supper are the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, which are offered and received, not only by the godly, but also by godless Christians [those who have nothing Christian except the name]."
If a layperson or a vicar administers it, is it valid? "IF" WELS has an incorrect view of the office of the ministry, does it invalidate the sacrament? This is very interesting to me -- and important, not just a theological exercise -- so I appreciate your input.
Rob,
You struck a chord with me. As stated the WELS perspective on the OHM is different than it once was. What implications does this have for the Holy Supper? hmmm...
These are the things I'm trying to find out. I'm a relative newby to Lutheranism (over the past several years). I joined WELS over a year ago as it seemed the best option in our Lutheran-poor area. I joined so I could commune. As I get deeper into studying Wisconsin, it seems to me (and I could be wrong) less confessional than others unfortunately not available in our area, but at least available online.
I am interested in finding some confessional WELS churches to ask questions - this is how I stumbled upon your blog. I hear there are a few "strictly" confessional WELS and I'm trying to locate them to pose my questions.
Just trying to see where the best available options might be for someone in my "predicament."
First of all Michael. You "heartily encourage me to read up on the Sacraments." I think 'tis you, not I.
First of all Luther was speaking of Baptisms and Masses said in the Roman Church which were valid, not the Reformed Sacrament of the Altar. Two different animals on the issue of the Lord's Supper.
Secondly and most importantly. And you had better read a tad more carefully, no A LOT more carefully. The context, N.B. is indeed the Sacramentarians and the Formula quotes the SA AGAINST what the Sacramentarians teach. Read the sentence which precedes the one you quoted
"The Sacramentarians perverted the Formula of Concord (the Wittenberg Concord), that is, the above-mentioned articles of union, to their advantage, as saying that the body of Christ is offered with the bread in no other way than as it is offered, together with all His benefits, by the Word of the Gospel, and that by the sacramental union nothing else than the spiritual presence of the Lord Christ by faith is meant."
And please read the whole paragraph (TD VII 17-19)! The Lutheran theologians had to say what you quoted because the Sacramentarians found a loophope in the Wittenberg Concord. The paragraph in summary reads, The theologians had to write, because of the Sacramentarians perversion, the following (what you quoted.)
The Confessors where correcting the false theology of the Sacramentarians about the real presence which they taught was not there. They were not saying that the presence is there in the Sacramentarians Sacrament, but that their theology was wrong in saying that Scripture does not teach it is. They taught it wasn't, that is, that the words, "this is my body" do not mean "this is my body."
Both you, Michael and IT, are making the word magic. Yes, the power of the God's Word cannot be diminished, but what makes a word mean what it says? If I teach you that the word "forgiveness" means that you have to do good works to receive that forgiveness, that is, I say "I forgive you" means "I allow you to do such and such work to earn forgiveness" and I say "I forgive you." What do you appropriate by faith? Forgiveness of sins? (What those words truly mean.) No. You appropriates work righteousness, that is what you have been told those words say and that is what you believe.
Again, to you and IT. If I said to you "ego te absolvo." And you did not know Latin, what benefit would you receive from those sounds. Nothing. The words do not act like magic. If you did not know English and I said, "I forgive you." What benefit would you receive from those sounds? Nothing. Believe it or not, you have fallen into the Romanist error of ex opere operata.
So of course the Reformed pastor does not say the words "This is not my body." But what he says is "This is not my body." Ask him! By the way this was Luther's big gripe with the Reformed of his day (I will get you a nice quote in a bit, I have to dig it out) they changed the meaning of the words.
IT, the example of the ELCA baptism does not follow here. It is valid because the theology of the Trinity, the name and the essence of the Sacrament is correct, despite its other errors. The faith of the baptizer has nothing to do with the matter, it is the confession of the church/catechist that does.
IT, yes, one does need to be careful in lumping together "Reformed."
Rob and John, let’s settle this issue before we move on to WELS view of the ministry. Ok?
RTMM
And to clarify an earlier post, I would rather say you, Michael, have confused the essence (esse) of the Sacrament with the benefit (beneficium).
Thank you for your clarification, however being about the Sacramentarians does not change the point.
A Sacramentarian preacher would have said "This is my my body" but meant "This is my body, but only in a spiritual way" (by the way this is also a view of some reformed dogmaticians)
Also read Smalkald Articles on the Mass, A Catholic priest says "This is my body" but means "I am making this Christ's body" and also "I am sacrificing this for Christ"
Yet Luther refers to Catholics having received the sacrament in such a mass, even as he wants the Roman Mass abolished
I do not wish to turn the sacrament into a magic show, however it is troubling that you would wish to take the comfort away from the sacrament by basing it on the person who offers it. (also tying into the OHM talk)
The essence AND the benefits have everything to do with Christ and nothing to do with the officiant, otherwise who would stand before God and find himself meriting of such an act?
Taking your view farther, showing how dangerous it is basing the sacrament on the faith of the officiant rather than on the merits of Christ given through the faith of the recipient.
What comfort is there in:
A pastor who could be saying the Words thoughtlessly?
A pastor who leaves the faith? Changes faith? Commits serious sins and is released from his call?
Under your charge it would not be a sacrament, Luther disagrees, from his large catechism:
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).
I would like to emphasize to all skimmers our there.
**For the Word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted does not become false because of the person or his unbelief.**
"If a layperson or a vicar administers it, is it valid?"
Yes, it is valid. My husband baptized all 3 of our children...the first when he was a sem student (almost 11 years ago in--see guys, I'm not Jennifer and I hate sharing more info about myself--but it's necessary here)..the 2nd when a vicar and the last after his ordination.
Are the baptism of my first 2 children not valid? Indeed they are. The only requirement for a valid baptism is the Word along with the element (in this case water).
We do call our pastors do preach the Word and administer the Sacraments. I believe we should allow them to function as we call them, but I don't think you can say that "only" pastors can perform the Sacraments. There are cases and special situations where a lay person might baptize a child or give someone communion...as long as the Word (as written in Scripture-no alterations) is used along with the elements, it is valid.
I agree, although I fear many more will disagree with me on this than any of the previous.
We have an emergency baptism rite in the front of our hymnal, as did LW, as does the ELS hymnal (that is where my experience ends). What would differ the sacrament of Holy Communion so much that it is not valid if a lay person offers it?
Certainly if God's word is efficacious even with "knaves" (Dr. Luther) it is certainly true also with laypersons...although some consider being a layperson a worse offense.
There have been cases where Pastors have been sick or unable to administer the sacrament due to injuries...do you then deny the sacrament? No! An elder or vicar officiates. The Word spoken has power in and of itself, not in the speaker.
We call pastors to publicly preach the Word and administer the sacraments. Therefore in general, he is the person to be doing such things.
But do we condemn those who preach the Word to their friends and relatives? No we do not.
Do we deny the baptisms done in emergency circumstances or those above? No we do not.
Likewise we do not deny the efficacy of the sacrament of the altar for those done in extenuating circumstances where the pastor could not perform his duties.
No one is basing the validity of the Sacrament on the faith of the officiant. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY! Once again, you have your straw man all prepared and ready to knock down.
You are not helping yourself.
If RTMM wrote what you claim, please go find it and quote it as proof.
Now be careful, for you have done this before on this thread. You have set up a straw man, (note how I will not illustrate how you do this, not just make the charge), you write,
"it is troubling that you would wish to take the comfort away from the sacrament by basing it on the person who offers it."
Nowhere do I say that. The validity of the Sacrament rests on the word. The Confession, fide quae, is that which tells us what the Word is, as I wrote, not the fides qua, the faith of the celebrant, as I wrote (and note how I show this from what I wrote) in regards to the validity of an ELCA baptism.
"The faith of the baptizer has nothing to do with the matter, it is the confession of the church/catechist that does."
Note that I carefully wrote the "confession" of the church and or catechist.
So likewise when you set up this straw
"The essence AND the benefits have everything to do with Christ and nothing to do with the officiant, otherwise who would stand before God and find himself meriting of such an act?"
Staw man, for nowhere do I say it has to do with the celebrant, but the word, and THE ISSUE AT HAND IS WHAT IS THE "WORD" that is used here. Not the mere sounds, but what those sounds mean. Please address my examples in regards to the words I forgive you."
Again your comparison to the Roman mass is a non sequitor. Rome attributes the Real Presence to the Word as well, with the error of the participation of the priest
So, Michael address the arguments that I have made and not those I have not. And yes, you still are asserting a position that makes the words magic, thus, ex opere operata, as I showed above.
I agree that the meaning of the Word is what makes it valid. However the Bible is absolute truth, and it true and powerful no matter what slant humans put on his words.
RTMM wrote(repeatedly) that it is the meaning of the words, as understood by the officiant, that made the sacrament valid.
5:04, 5:30, and 6:52
He has likewise in those same posts said that if one does not teach the sacrament properly there is not a valid sacrament.
RTMM said: "Michael is incorrect. The Reformed do not have a valid Sacrament. They do not have the word, for they change the word "is" to mean "not is". The power of the Word is in the meaning."
However, they have the bread and the wine, and the Word. Thus, regardless of teaching, they have the sacrament.
Again, in refutation to RTMM Dr. Luther writes:
"13] Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. 14] But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive."
No. They were done immediately or shortly after birth. None of our children were baptized in church. Because we truly believe baptism is a work of the Holy Spirit, we chose to baptize our children ASAP and not until it was convienent for the family to gather so that we could have a party (not judging anyone else in this, it's just that would have been the only reason for us to wait).
Luther continually extols the role of the father as the head of the family. My husband felt strongly about baptizing his children and he would support any father that wished to baptize their children as well.
"There is no emergency communion."
I disagree. My grandmother, was on her deathbed. She wanted communion. The pastor was not available, but she was desperate...it was her last request before she slipped away from us. We had wine and we had bread (it was actually unleven bread due to our family's heritage), so my father communed her, using the Words of instituition from the hymnal. Less than 3 hours later, she left this life to be her Father. The pastor arrived 30 minutes after her passing...so there is such a thing as "emergency communion." It may not be common, but it does exist.
I just read you last post which I did not see before I posted my last. Had I seen that I would have scolded you even harder for the straw man you set up.
You have ignored these warnings in the past, do not do so now. Prove your assertions from the words written and answer the clear scenarios and questions I have put to you. Your view is magic, as I showed above. The Reformed have no presence in their "Sacrament" becausue they do not have the Word.
(Sorry couldn't help myself). We will stop using the term "straw man" when Michael stops using that tactic, i.e. saying others say things they do not so he can disagree with them. If he persists then other appellations will be appropriate.
I was wishing to speak to Rob in comfort about the forgiveness of sins he did truly receive in his LCMS.
I believe we are speaking past each other in the term "valid"
I nowhere wished to say that those who do not have a real presence view truly receive the benefits of the sacrament.
However, let me agree with you when you say confession (as I was through by the word catechist, which I took to mean teacher)
For if I am not told that I am receiving the true body and blood how would I believe it? And how are gifts of the spirit received if not by faith.
However if one is properly taught and told that it is the true body and blood and denies it or rejects it then he is rejecting the very forgiveness which is the promise of the sacrament.
My apologies for my misunderstanding of your words.
When speaking of the issue of the real presence (which is the matter under consideration at this time on this thread) whether you are Reformed or Ariminian the botton line is the same, the body and blood of Christ are not on the altar, in the hand of the clelebrant and in the mouth of the communicant. I know that there are varying views of the "presence" (symbolic, spiritual presence, a communion with the body of Christ in heaven via the Spirit) but the bottom line is the same, not here under the bread and wine.
But again as I noted, it other areas the lumping together is not helpful and there are so many, as you probably know better, it would be difficult to discuss them all here.
Thanks for your last post..it did clear things up for me as to how you are approaching things. And yes, you are correct in that it would be difficult to discuss every varying aspect here.
Also, please stop acting as if I purposely read your words and then "set up my straw man" for the expressed purpose of looking smart among and over you.
I am here not to look smart, but rather to gain knowledge and understanding.
If I have said something wrong. Please correct me in love. However, there will be times where I will misunderstand and be misunderstood.
Anonymous at 8:02 was dead on. I was fighting like the dickens about something that I knew to be true about the sacraments but had mistakenly viewed actually being said.
In view of that, based on the "confession of the church" rather than the "faith of the celebrant" I retract my statements about those who do not believe in the Real Presence. Their condemnation is deep rooted and comes from their confession not in their mishandling of the Sacrament, which is not present.
Thank you RTMM for the lesson in both dogmatics and logic.
"I nowhere wished to say that those who do not have a real presence view truly receive the benefits of the sacrament."
Do you mean by that that the Reformed have no Sacrament? That is, that the body and blood of Christ are not present. Because you asserted they do. Have you reversed that view or do you still hold to it? (Or do you mean that someone said you said that they receive the true body and blood but not beneficially? I didn't.)
Also you write
"I believe we are speaking past each other in the term 'valid'"
No, I don't think we are. Either a) we agree and you think the Reformed enjoy the real presence as you originally wrote
"If a person denies the real presence, ie the reformed, they continue to take a 'valid' sacrament, however the body and blood is not for their benefit but for their (sic) judgment. (1 cor 11)"
So you say the body and blood are present, but present for judgment.
Or b) you have a different understanding of the word "valid" than that with which the Church operates.
It seems from your first post that you believe the Reformed enjoy the real presence in Sacrament then we are not speaking past one another. The whole discussion is in that vein. You are incorrect though, on your understanding of the real presence in the Reformed Sacrament. And if you do not agree you need to the issue of the Word and the questions I put to you on that. Everything hinges on that. You still are on record as having a view that it works as magic, sounds not meaning (thus your view that the Reformed have a valid sacrament, that is, the real presence.)
And as I was about to post this, I see that you posted again and wrote,
"Also, please stop acting as if I purposely read your words and then 'set up my straw man' for the expressed purpose of looking smart among and over you."
I certainly hope you did not address those words to me because did I say you "purposely" did this? No. I said you had done it before. Did I say you did it for the purpose of "looking smart." No, I said you don't read carefully and your theology is very weak here.
I have had many fathers who have corrected my theology and I, too, am sincerely grateful.
"I retract my statements about those who do not believe in the Real Presence. Their condemnation is deep rooted and comes from their confession not in their mishandling of the Sacrament, which is not present."
Thus I must change from the proposed teacher to the one being taught because I am confused in this way...
I sent this to a professor of mine
"I have been taught on numerous occasions that the efficacy of the Sacraments rests on the Word and not the worthiness of the person giving the Sacraments.
However, Luther in his 1528 "Large Confession on the Supper" (part of Article VII of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord) writes, "...if they first changed God's Word and ordinance and interpreted it differently, as do the current enemies of the Sacrament. They admittedly have only bread and wine..."
Therefore why would the same not hold true for Baptism? We proclaim one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. But if the myriad of hetrodox churches believe, teach and confess incorrectly concerning baptism, that: Baptism is a washing away of only original and not actual sin; It is only a ceremonial washing. If the name of the trinity spoken is not believed and taught as it is taught in the Bible...etc etc etc. Why is one sacrament not invalidated by improper confession, yet the other not?"
"Therefore why would the same not hold true for Baptism? We proclaim one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. But if the myriad of hetrodox (sic) churches believe, teach and confess incorrectly concerning baptism, that: Baptism is a washing away of only original and not actual sin; It is only a ceremonial washing. If the name of the trinity spoken is not believed and taught as it is taught in the Bible...etc etc etc. Why is one sacrament not invalidated by improper confession, yet the other not?"
I will defer to Chemnitz (well, I always do) when he writes,
"Use surely does not make a Sacrament but the Word, ordinance and institution of Christ. And there is a difference between the essence of a Sacrament and its use." ("Ministry, Word and Sacrament" CPH 1981, translated by Luther Poellet, page 121)
Now, he wrote this in regards to the Sacrament of the Altar but he and the Lutheran Church applies this to baptism as well. (This is what I was referring to when I spoke of the esse or essence and the benefit (i.e. use) of the Sacrament in one of my posts. I was setting a Chemnitz trap.)
Most Lutheran theologians (though I hesitate to say all because there may be some who hold that these baptisms are not valid) hold that a Trinitarian Baptism (that is by those who hold to the Trinity and Baptism in the name of the Trinity) in the name of the Holy Trinity, the name being the work of Christ sent by the Father in the Spirit, is a valid one. The essence, word and element, are there. It is in the beneficium or use where they err. Again, errors in other areas do not invalidate the proper Word used with water act, granting that the word "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is not denied (i.e. as it is by non Trinitarian churches who yet use the so called Trinitarian formula).
The example of the Corinthians is a case in point, bad theology on the use of the Supper, but they had the Supper, the body and blood of Christ, nonetheless, and eaten, in their case, to their judgment.
Thank you for your chemnitz trap, perhaps I should have been more inclined to catch myself falling into it. The exact edition of the Enchiridion that you used is sitting next to my laptop and has been all night. I cracked it many times but had not fallen on pg. 121.
Thank you for your work. If I understand correctly the following statements are true.
1) If a congregation holds to the real presence (esse) of The Sacrament of the Altar it is valid regardless of what they believe concerning the benefits. Thus drinking damnation.
2) If a congregation holds a view falsely about the essence, then it is not a sacrament they only have the bread and wine.
3) Thus the essence of the Sacrament of Baptism is in the trinitarian teaching not the teachings of the benefits. Thus the baptisms of the Baptists, Christian Reformed, Dutch Reformed, etc are valid, but if Arian was here, the baptism of his followers would not be (denied the deity of Christ)
Just for the record, the view espoused here by RTMM is exactly what the WELS teaches and what is taught at the Seminary. Just didn't want anyone to think that Mr. Schottey's (original) views represented the WELS position. They didn't--as he will realize once he gets to the Sem.
Could it be said this way, that, as the sacrifice of Christ was for the sins of the whole world, only those who believe receive the benefit (that being salvation and belief not being a decision the individual makes - all glory to God)?
So, regarding Real Presence in the sacrament, when the ordinary elements of bread and wine are joined with the words of institution - a sacrament is made, because of Christ. But, to receive the benefits, you have to believe the Words of Christ - done for us for the remission of our sins (again, our belief not being a "choice" or decision we make with our own reason and intellect)? So, if the sacrament is valid with natural element and word, unbelief is to the recipients damnation?
This may be too much human reason and non-Scriptural or Confessional, so I welcome your input.
Actually that is what the Scriptures and Confessions say. As you note, it is not reception of the Sacrament, it is receiving it in faith that brings us the benefit (that is, to receive worthily), faith alone.
So my next conclusion would be that the sacrament is valid when "performed" with the words of institution despite a church being heterodox such as ELCA for instance? I wouldn't commune there because of not sharing their heterodox doctrine, but their sacrament would still be valid?
If this is true, and agreed that no church is "perfect," it is not necessary to have complete agreement with all the teachings of a congregation (or synod) to partake of a valid sacrament?
And, as previously inquired if we've settled my first question, what/where do the Confessions address the role of the pastor in the distribution and the permission of a non-clergy to distribute?
Yes, the ELCA celebrates a valid sacrament (though that is now becoming a question because they are now beginning to equivocate on the real presence, but that’s another thread).
As to your second question,
"If this is true, and agreed that no church is 'perfect,' it is not necessary to have complete agreement with all the teachings of a congregation (or synod) to partake of a valid sacrament?"
No it is not necessary to have complete agreement with all the teachings of that church (granting they do not invalidate the Sacrament) to partake of a valid Sacrament, but there are other reasons we would pass on communing with them.
However, the judgment of a church as to whether it is 'perfect' or not is not based on the perfection of the congregation but the public confession of that church. Does this church correctly proclaim the Gospel and rightly administer the Sacraments (and not just have it in their constitutions or have the correct initials on their church sign and nauseatingly repeat, "we teach the word in its truth and purity.")
And you ask
"And, is it closed communion or close communion?"
Yes, and open too. Open to all who come in faith, closed to all who come impenitent or whose public life or confession would disrupt the communion, close (a kinder, gentler and new term coined so that we Lutherans don’t seem so cold) in that we have a communion with the Holy things and the Holy people.
And to your second post. Non-clergy, as you write may not administer the Sacraments. The Augsburg Confession, Article XIV forbids it, "No one should publicly teach in the Church, or administer the Sacraments, without a rightly ordered call."
Wait a second, RTMM, do the Confessions say that non-clergy can't administer the sacrament or that those who are rightly called can't administer the sacrament? There's a difference.
It is a distinction without a difference. The term "clergy" is understood in common language and in Lutheran discussions (as one hopes this is) to mean those rightly called into the Office (if you beleive there is one). That pastor who resigned his call is no longer a clergyman. That layman who is rightly called is a clergyman.
Thanks, I was wondering how closed communion instead. If you could direct me to where I could read more about that, I'd appreciate it.
Also, from what I understand, the debate lies within Lutheranism about which calls are being referred to with regards to who should distribute. Some teach only pastors and others teach any office in the church? I need to research more about calls.
What do you mean by "... to mean those rightly called into the Office (if you beleive there is one)."
Thanks, I was wondering how closed communion instead. If you could direct me to where I could read more about that, I'd appreciate it.
Also, from what I understand, the debate lies within Lutheranism about which calls are being referred to with regards to who should distribute. Some teach only pastors and others teach any office in the church? I need to research more about calls.
What do you mean by "... to mean those rightly called into the Office (if you beleive there is one)."
I can't think of anything in particular to read in regards to the "closed" gave way to "close" issue. It just seemed to happen over time, especially in the 70's when conservative Lutherans didn't want to appear so cold by refusing some the Sacrament. As far as I am concerned neither term is all that useful as each can lead to misunderstandings.
You wrote,
"What do you mean by '... to mean those rightly called into the Office (if you beleive there is one).'"
Official WELS says that God did not establish an office of preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments but He instituted those functions (preaching and administering the Sacraments.) They say any way that gets done is ok as long as it is done orderly. Complicating their view is the view that everything done in the church is ministry, so whether you are a pastor or a custodian you are in the ministry. Further complicating that is their view that women may hold any of these ministries, even the pastorate as long as she does not exercise authority over a man (and I won't even go into all the double talk that goes on in regards to that issue.) Believe it or not, I know of one WELS church that decided not to have a woman principal in their parochial school (all the teachers were women) because she would have to tell the custodian what to do, a no-no.
For my part I believe that God instituted an office as Augsburg Confession V says.
At my church we have lay people teaching adult Sunday School classes. As you noted, the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV says, "No one should publicly teach in the Church, or administer the Sacraments, without a rightly ordered call."
Does this mean that we shouldn't have lay people teaching these classes? Could my church "cure" this by calling these laymen to be Adult Sunday School teachers? Or does a rightly ordered call involve more than just installing them as teachers at our next worship service?
That is curious. Something must have been written with opposing views of "publicly" teach. Can anyone point me in the direction of some material about that? Preferably confessional material, but I probably don't use that adjective correctly.
Thanks for your patience with my inquiries. I'm sure much of this is basic stuff that someone who has been properly catechized should know. Unfortunately, the church I joined had Bible information classes which didn't study either catechism.
I guess I would first of all ask why isn’t the pastor teaching these classes?
But to your question, these layman should be called, examined and ordained (which is what the rite vocatus includes). But let’s go back. Why do we examine our pastors as we do (this means that have been proven qualified, which the church does by Seminary training and by examining their doctrine.) Obvious, so they may meet the qualifications set down in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1-8, Titus 1:5-11) because of the grave and important tasks they have. Should we expect any less from any one who assumes the office? I think not.
Sadly, many churches in the WELS do just that. But I ask, if a man is not qualified to be a pastor (whose call is to rightly preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments) then is he qualified to teach in the church? I always say, you can call any man you want, but he should be qualified and he should do the AC V things.
Now the WELS answer to your question (I am assuming you are WELS) is they have already been “called” as they have been asked or assigned to do this task and they are competent (or so they say) to do the job. The WELS would say that AC XIV has been met. But again, as I said above, if they are not qualified to assume the task of the pastorate (whose duties are nothing more than laid out in AC V and are qualified according to AC XIV) why should they have this little piece of the ministry pie. Should the qualifications be any less? I guess I would ask, are these men qualified to assume this office, and if so, call, examine and ordain them.
The term publicly (publice in Latin, offentlich in German)that is used in AC XIV has the sense of officially and for all to benefit from, as opposed to unofficially and hidden. Somehwat in the sense of what we mean when we say somone is a public official.
For a good study try to get Robert Preus' monograph "The Doctrine of the Call in the Lutheran Confessions and Lutheran Orthodoxy."
316 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 316 of 316The statute of limitations has run out on Michael Schottey. More than a day and a half have passed and he has posted elsewhere and here but not to the issue. Therefore I declare that he concedes all points above and he admits he stands in error. He may post an apology.
Court is adjourned.
Da Judge
..
Anonymous said, "John has already stated that he disagrees with official WELS doctrine."
John said, "This isn't actually accurate."
John said October 28, 2007 3:23 PM, "This is where the WELS goes astray in the doctrine of the ministry.
Yes! That is what I said. The WELS view has shifted and gone astray from its previously documented view on the OHM. I believe this.
What do you believe?
Stay on topic(s)!
Da Judge,
I was not aware you were here. Far be it from me to neglect your presence.
Satire aside, most of the posting I've done has been between classes and on breaks from homework. I believe the questions I've been asked are more involved than just a few minutes of banter.
Tonight however is a night off, so I would be willing to spend some time on the matter of Holy Communion. However, I am confused, as often I am in these packed forums, exactly what questions you're all asking. So...GM, or others. Please restate the question and I will do my humble best to answer in a timely matter.
Finally, to "Mass Guy" who has asked me time and again to (in layman's terms) "put up or shut up." I feel as if my former words are sufficient. In his comment (the 5th by proper count), he declared that I (and just about everyone I know) to not be truly Lutheran by the virtue of not receiving the Lord's supper every Sunday.
Also, I would further ask, that if things are not being handled "in a timely matter" perhaps a better method would be emailing me. Although I am not hesitant to put my feelings in public, email is a simpler way of conversing, rather that wading through the talk of hippies and crocks.
My email address can be found on my website, The Shepherd's Voice, which is linked on Bailing Water.
In Nomine Jesu
Michael A. Schottey
1:21 pm anonymous..
Do you care to follow up on your comment?
Michael A. Schottey,
My question, asked repeatedly of you, is what does it take to make the Gospel into a law. Find my previous posts for my further comments on this question. There you will see that I want to know what you think constitutes attaching a rule to the Gospel, and how this is different from doing things based on what they are.
RNN
Student Schottey,
You knew what the questions were before when you asked for more time. Why should everyone now restate them? This looks like a sad stall tactic by someone who knows he's been beaten but who's ego won't allow him to admit that.
a@10:03
Thank you for telling me what I know and don't know and thank you very much for searching my heart, since you know me so well, and telling me what my motives were.
No, there are 200+ posts and multiple people asking me multiple things, some of which I tried to answer, some of which apparently I've missed.
Thank you RNN (sincerely) for taking the time to restate your question.
And, pardon me, but my life (and my ego) do not revolve around this blog or any other.
Michael,
Oh man! Your life doesn't revolve around BW?
I want to thank you for taking time during your studies to add your thoughts and perspective.
Thanks John,
A small comment to you as well, thank you for providing this outlet. I would urge you--as I often try but fail--to worry more about taking the time to correctly expound on your views, rather than just proving to others that you are right.
To God be the glory!
(to others, don't worry, i'm working on it--the coffee pot is on, don't wait up Martha!)
Let me add a little heat and a little light to this discussion. Mr. Schottey, if you are so pressed for time and if your life does not revolve around this blog (and heaven help anyone whose does) then perhaps you shouldn't so cavalierly post and spout your unsubstantiated charges and uninformed opinions and if you would respond to the questions put to you and not ignore them but continue to post and spin off in all sorts of other directions then perhaps you wouldn't find yourself so swamped.
GM
GM, it would seem you have a personal angst against Schottey...according to Matt. 18, you should take it to private communication instead of trying to embarrass him here in public.
A college student who is married, working and carrying a full load should be given a bit of grace. Of all the MLC students, he's actually taking time to dialogue--ease up a bit. And no, I don't know him personally--so no bias on my part.
Let the older generation lead by example--being overly harsh on the younger generation won't give you what you want.
IT
GM, RNN, et al.
Thank you for your "patience" I however wonder greatly at your insistence that I hurry the matter and then (to GM) call my opinions unsubstantiated and uninformed.
If you would like me to be more hurried then I shall speak more off the cuff (as I did the other night while I was at work away from my library)...
if you would like me to be more "informed", citing more sources and substantiating my claims with more than just that which I remember from classes or my reading, using actual in-text referencing, then I will take more time (as I did tonight, spending most of my night, not in a sad tactic of stalling, but rather studying and reading on the matter)
All that being said my response is found on my website:
theshepherdsvoice.blogspot.com
primarily, because it is much easier to type as an admin than as a commenter.
secondarily, because I would like you to judge me on a bigger and more cohesive body of my writings than simple snippets as I try to respond to many people concerning many topics
thirdly, I will sleep better knowing SOMEONE is reading my site these days :-)
I would ask that you may comment there, but responses to each other should be saved for here. My site is meant to be many things, but not polemical nor a place for arguing
In Nomine Jesu
Michael A. Schottey
Shameless self-promotion instead of actual answers? Not helpful.
Student Schottey,
I read your post. You gave the same answers you gave here before. You are still arguing against points no one made. No one has made a law of frequency. BTW, if a congregation only offers the Sacrament once or twice a month, they are making a law of frequency for their people by not offering them Christ's body and blood on the "off" weeks, regardless of who desires it.
It would be helpful to back up your words from Scripture or the Lutheran Confessions, as most have done here. We do not subscribe unconditionally to Walther or Chemnitz, or even to the other writings of Luther.
See mav's comment from 11-26 at 12:11. This speaks more clearly than I.
It would be helpful to your scholarship to take out all the "I believes". It sounds terribly pompous and arrogant. Back up your positions, if you can, but to use what you believe as some sort of proof is childish. I appreciate that you are still a student and will hopefully learn some humility and to rely on something other than your own ego in the future.
In this debate, you were soundly beaten by those opposing you, which you've now shown clearly by only saying the same things on your own blog that you have already said here and not answering questions put to you.
Though you are a student, you are not the only one who is busy. Yet others answer questions put to them and do it in a more humble way than by directing traffic to their own websites.
SO
The last 2 posts are incredible.
If I were Schottey, I wouldn't even bother with responding to these people because nothing you say will be okay.
You try to explain your life situation when you are accused of basically hiding from posting and then everyone whines that they are "busy" too. You explain why you posted on your site and you are called a shameless "self-promotor."
The ironic thing is that all the wussies who are coming after you can't even use their names. They have your name though and it would seem are stalking you on the internet while they hide under their anon or SO or MG or whatever.
It is because of people like them that I use my initials because it would seem that I am not as brave as you and the thought of those morons stalking me is beyond creepy.
Keep it up Mr. Schottey, not everyone is judging you as harshly (or is a Pharisee) as some of the poeple in this thread.
IT
1) http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg5jbc26_3fw238n
2) I quoted the Small and Large Catechisms and the augsburg confession
I also referenced an exegetical look at both 1 Corinthians and John 6:53
3) You can call me foolish or incorrect all you want, but please stop calling my pride, my ego, or my narcissism into question. a) you don't know me; b)you don't know my movtives; c) If you do know me you should be pointing out my "sins" in love, not in an effort to make yourself look more mature at my expense. (trust me its not working)
Lastly, what I wrote, I did so because it specifically answered the questions in this forum, I drew heavily from the answers I already gave but took the the time to show where I had gotten them.
I find the greatest little morsel of joy in the fact that I am a extremely loud proponent of every-sunday communion yet my ego, confessionalism, my education, and my courage has been called into question simply because I refuse to condemn to pietism those who do not.
The old questions I have answered as sufficiently as I could, my apologies if you consider it lacking. I will not continue to answer them again and again. If I have missed a question or new questions pop up. Let me know and I will do my best for those as well.
May it continue to be said that all our actions are done and all our words are said out of love for HIM who loved us first and out of love for each other.
You are hiding again Mr. Schottey.
You have no answers for all the WE_S false doctrines because there are no answers. You have been soundly beaten by better people. You are just too arrogant to admit it. SO and MG have repudiated you again and again. You simply show that you do not value the Mass or that you do not have the courage to catechize. Either way there is no hope for you.
Wait- I didn't just write that. It was just what I expect to be written soon.
Even sadder
To anon, 8:16...
"Wait- I didn't just write that. It was just what I expect to be written soon.
Even sadder"
I agree it is sad because the very people who claim Mr. S. is "hiding" are doing the exact same things themselves. Honestly, I've learned little from them, yet they hold themselves in high esteem. Who has the ego? Let me say, in this case, it's not Mr. S and that is clear for everyone to see.
IT
Pretty predictable. Young Schottey (MS) does not respond, and "Jennifer" (which will be our name for this nasty poster who never addresses the argument at hand) jumps in and speaks for young Schottey. Oh, well, you gotta love free speech.
No, MS you did not respond, how incredible that you claim
"I quoted the Small and Large Catechisms and the Augsburg confession
I also referenced an exegetical look at both 1 Corinthians and John 6:53"
Unbelievable. Now first of all you did not do any of the above in your posts, let alone answering any of the questions put to you in answer to your charges, let alone your so called exegetical look at 1 Corinthians 11 in which you said the Lord said, "do this," and "often," ergo "do this often." How laughable, how Marcionite, as I showed you from the actual text. You did not understand the text, nor, - and I wasn’t waiting for it – admit your error.
And it was others who quoted the LC and AC for you in the above posts. Yes, you quoted the Catechism in your little essay – which also does not address the questions put to you because of your unsubstantiated charges of legalism against the words of me and others (by the way you cannot slander a set of initials, your error is against the words and not me). And by the way, saying "I quoted" etc. proves nothing, as Luther said, Satan can quote the Scriptures for his purposes.
I find it ironic that this whole discussion was initiated by a so-called test to see how Lutheran one is. How absurd. And so the so-called "Mass Guy" posted his "test," a presumptuous task, but indeed one that did define Lutheranism as do the Lutheran Confessions.
So you are wrong MS, there is no legalism in the words of the infamous Mass Guy. To simply say you proved it by your saying you did is, again, laughable. He said a Lutheran is one "who attends" a church which offers (note, a receving word) the evangelically restored mass every Lord’s Day.
So what is a Lutheran church, well, young Schottey, for that you would go to the Book of Concord. And what does the BOC say "we" Lutherans do, who do "our churches" do? Your assignment, buy a BOC and read AC XXIV and AP XXIV. "Every Lord’s Day." This is what Lutheran churches do, not because they say "you have to" but because of the command and promise of God, this is what they do. But, using your logic you say that the Confessors are legalists.
Now, let me propose a hypothetical. Suppose a WELS church baptizes people, and the pastor believes correctly about it, but does not so catechize and preach that people desire baptism, and people delay and even ignore Baptism. Is this a Lutheran Church? I'll answer for you. No. In this regard it is not Lutheran, for this is not what Lutherans do.
So, if a church body communes people, occasionally, and its pastor's have a marginal understanding of the Lord's Supper, well, like the WELS, but does not practice "as our churches do" is this a Lutheran Church in this respect. No. (This let alone the subborn resistence of the practice in so many churches.)
I posed a hypothetical
"If a congregation is sufficiently catechized to be offered the Blessed Sacrament on the first and third Sundays of the month, is it not sufficiently catechized to be offered it every Lord's Day, on festivals and when people ask for it?
And so conversely, if a congregation is not sufficiently catechized to be offered the Blessed Sacrament "every Lord's Day" is it sufficiently catechized to be offered it at all?"
Let me draw the conclusion for you. This is where the WELS is, save a couple enlightened pastors and churches. WELS says its people need more catechization to move to every Lord's Day. Fine, I agree. And so the converse is true. They are not properly catechized to be offered the Sacrament at all. Ask, as I have many, many times, WELS people why a church should not offer the Sacrament every Sunday and you will hear the same old reasons over and over again, (not special, take for granted, don’t need it etc.) which tell you they are not properly catechized.
So this in this regard the WELS is not Lutheran. Oh, the time issue, it’s been 157 years.
Finally, you say you answered questions but you didn't, you claim to take exegetical looks at the text which were jokes, you take umbrage at the comments that you are dodging the questions (as I said, if you are "too busy" to support your charges and assertions, remain silent) all of which suggests that either you are delusional or a typical WELS pastor track student, I fear the latter.
GM
(Ok, "Jennifer," your turn.)
Mike,
Here is the problem as I see it. You have interjected yourself into this conversation by accusing those who advocate a return to offering communion every service as making a law of the Gospel. Then, when asked to substantiate that accusation (by explaining who has said that and what it even means) you say, "I don't have time right now. I'll get to it when I have time." That isn't how it works. You don't make the accusation unless you can prove it. Everyone is busy. I won't fault you for being busy too. But if you are too busy to defend your statements or substantiate your accusations, then you shouldn't make them.
JDP
Mass Guy,
You're right, again. My apologies to all you pastor track guys and gals at MLC.
GM
Mass Guy (yes,we know each other) scolded me for indicting all WELS pastor track students most of whom probably would be embarrassed by MS's comments.
GM
JDP,
I did not respond that I was too busy or unable, I simply refused to abide by the "statute of limitations" that I was arbitrarily placed under.
GM,
I own a book of Concord, I reference those same words when I wrote my "little essay"
However Luther, who wrote those words did not mean them to be prescriptive, if he did he would not have advised the Lutherans in Wittenburg to suspend the sacrament in the time of Carlstadt.
MS,
What words of Luther? And what are you talking about, I have no clue to what you are referring.
GM
"I did not respond that I was too busy or unable, I simply refused to abide by the "statute of limitations" that I was arbitrarily placed under."
I misunderstood you then. I'm sorry. But my point still stands. Remain silent until you are ready to defend your statements or substantiate your accusations. I know you know this because you've admonished others to do the same. So, out of love, I return the admonishment.
Good luck in your continued studies.
JDP
Denfendant Schottey,
You object
"I did not respond that I was too busy or unable, I simply refused to abide by the "statute of limitations" that I was arbitrarily placed under."
"Arbitrarily?" Did you not read my ruling? 1. You were given sufficient time to respond. 2. Alegations bring with them obligations - proof. 3. You were continuing to post, showing you had time.
Overruled.
Da Judge
Mr. Schottey,
I, unlike GM and several others on this board, actually took the time to read the essay you wrote. I thought it was well-researched and well-written.
Try not to take the jerks on this board personally. Hey, at least it will teach you the patience that you'll need one day as a pastor to deal with the jerks in your own congregation.
God's blessings on your studies.
"Jerks in your own congregation."
Our Lord would call them something else.
Yes, he would see them as souls in need of the law or of the Gospel, indeed, his body and blood. Not "jerks."
KG
GM,
I am not sure we are not sure that you are not sure that you know what you are asking/talking about.
This sure is confusing.
My final thoughts, on the matter is that I agree with Mass Guy and GM on the subject of the frequency of communion. I believe we should strive as a synod to reach a time and place where our members desire it constantly and our pastors offer it as often as possible.
I however believe the methods in which they (and others) are trying to achieve this is to make themselves look "more confessional" and "more Lutheran" at the expense of others. Their personal attacks serve as a testimony.
I have written what I believe to be a clear and consise testimony. If you disagree, feel free to improve upon it or suggest improvements. I however will not continue to defend myself because I seek not to make myself look better in their eyes nor to the blogsphere in general.
Chicken- don't you realize we live for this stuff
"I, unlike GM and several others on this board, actually took the time to read the essay you wrote. I thought it was well-researched and well-written."
I'm pretty sure everyone who has commmented on it read it--at least as sure as you are that we didn't.
And what people have said in response is legitimate--Mr. Schottey is rebutting imaginary arguments, he never explains how saying "this is what Lutherans do; why aren't we doing what Lutherans do?" makes a LAW of the Gospel, and he ignores the very practical point, made repeatedly here, that people can't commune as often as they desire to, if the Lord's Supper isn't offered at every service.
LM
M.S.,
"I however believe the methods in which they (and others) are trying to achieve this is to make themselves look "more confessional" and "more Lutheran" at the expense of others. Their personal attacks serve as a testimony."
This isn't the first time you've said this. I do not understand where you get the idea that people who defend good Lutheran doctrine and practices are doing so to make themselves look better. How can you know this? Have you been told this? And if this is just something you made up yourself, well, I guess we'll never understand it, because you've never explained it and now you've promised not to say another word about it. Convicting someone wihtout showing them the proof is what put you in the hot seat in the first place. I sincerely hope that for your sake, and your future congreagation's sake, you eventually can sort this out.
Lord's blessings to you and your family.
"I do not understand where you get the idea that people who defend good Lutheran doctrine and practices are doing so to make themselves look better."
I'm guessing that it's comments like, "You're not a true Lutheran unless you celebrate the Mass weekly." That comment has nothing to do with education or edification. It serves simply to say, "I'm a good Lutheran, you're not." That's exactly what Mr. Schottey was talking about.
"You're not a true Lutheran unless you celebrate the Mass weekly."
'sigh' I never said that (in those words)and if you took that from the way I have said it (just not in those words) it is your fault not mine.
Mass Guy,
I'm not Jennifer. I asked who Jennifer was eons ago and I was agitated by your and Jo's abuse of Jennifer, but I'm not Jennifer.
But, believe as you will. My apologies to Jennifer...no idea who you are, but I'm sorry that my words are being attributed to you. I would say my real name, but the idea of Mass Guy/Jo floating around the internet blasting my name (which is fairly unique--much moreso than "Jennifer"..I'm the only one in the Synod yearbook with my name, I think) all over the place.
Anyways, MG, you're just mad because you know what Matt 18 says and you know I'm right. You have a axe to grind--fine, but grind it in private.
IT
Oops, I meant GM...I missed the 2 up...though since they are irl buds, I guess I didn't really.
IT
Thanks, Mike and "Jennifer"! I have learned two new debating ploys when I cannot do so with with actual facts and argumentation, I simply say
I have answered all your questions and refuted all your arguments.
And
You are mean, jerks, stalkers and that is why we don't answer your questions and refute your arguments.
Magnifico!
Jesus wouldn't have used the term jerk, he would have used something more along the lines of "whitewashed tombs, snakes, brood of vipers," that sort of thing.
Anon writes,
Jesus wouldn't have used the term jerk, he would have used something more along the lines of "whitewashed tombs, snakes, brood of vipers," that sort of thing.
Absolutely! (as I said, souls in need of the law).
Karl G.
Keep telling yourself that Magnifico, you are right, and gol darn it people like you.
That and a host of other daily affirmations will get you by.
Wow,
I just checked, approximately 61% of the comments after the can of worms, if I can be so indelicate, of the discussion about the Lord's Supper was begun are extraneous to that point. Well, now 62% (sorry). Can we continue that discussion? It seems that Michael is being asked to respond to some specific questions and I would like to hear his perspective, not just the "other side" if it can be termed that. Take your time, though. I have lots.
Karl G.
People do like me! They really, really like me. (But I already knew that, Mr. Rogers told me that he liked me just the way I am.)
Magnifico the Great
No one asked me any questions.
There was nothing to answer.
Going to stay over to stay on the other thread where it is productive.
As for judging my soul-it's good to know you feel you are God and have the ability to that...I believe that is called blasphemy.
IT
Karl G,
Are you Karl Gurgel?
Or Kenny G.'s brother? I kid. It is nice that you are here, regardless of what the G stands for.
Karl G,
My answers can be found at
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg5jbc26_3fw238n
also posted to my blog at
theshepherdsvoice.blogspot.com
I chose to write in that medium because the area in which the software gives me to write was more sufficient than a comment box. Auto saving was also a factor
Let's put it this way, I have a lot of time on my hands, now.
Karl G.
New blogger here -
What makes mass/communion/Lord's Supper valid? Are all Lutheran masses valid sacraments even if one is ELCA, LCMS, WELS etc.? If a Reformed/Protestant service uses the words of institution but doesn't believe in Real Presence, is that what invalidates it? Are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox masses valid? Maybe valid isn't the correct term...
I attend a WELS congregation (previous LCMS after coming from Reformed). After a recent Sunday School series on the liturgy, I'm beginning to have concerns about the pietistic influences on the Wisconsin Synod. What makes a church "confessional"? Does it have to be confessional to have a valid mass?
I apologize for the number of questions, but they seem to be related to this thread. Just curious.
Rob
Rob,
-The Words of Luther
"How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins."
It is not the faith of the individual nor the faith of the pastor presiding that merits the Body and Blood of our Lord, but rather the innocent suffering and death of our Lord Jesus Christ.
On your second paragraph,
Many of the current Lord's Supper practices are the direct result of the Age of Pietism and other concurrent causes like The 30 year's war, rationalism, etc.
A good paper on how that affects today's church:
http://www.wlsessays.net/authors/PQ/PrangePietism/PrangePietism.pdf
So there is no difference between a Lutheran communion and one in any other denomination?
Rob
If a person denies the real presence, ie the reformed, they continue to take a "valid" sacrament, however the body and blood is not for their benefit but for their judgment. (1 cor 11)
If a person denies the true meaning of the sacrament, such as the belief that it is a sacrifice we do for God, ie the Catholic (RCC and EO), the same applies. The sacrament is still a sacrament, but it is not taken correctly and for benefit.
Rob,
Michael is incorrect. The Reformed do not have a valid Sacrament. They do not have the word, for they change the word "is" to mean "not is". The power of the Word is in the meaning. The Reformed and most Protestants teach that the body and blood are not present under the bread and wine. For example with the LDS or any non Trinity cult's baptism, though using the Trinitarian formula they have no baptism because they change the "name" of God, they change the Word.
No Word, no Sacrament. And again it is not the sounds but the meaning. Otherwise it is pure magic, i.e. saying the correct sounds (and we would have to consecrate and baptize in Greek).
RTMM
RTMM,
I would heartily encourage you to read up on the sacraments when you say "it is not the sounds but the meaning"
The Reformed do not have a correct view of baptisms, yet their have valid baptisms.
However if they truly take out the Words or Institution (every reformed church I've been in has included them) then it is not a valid sacrament.
"They do not have the word, for they change the word "is" to mean "not is". The power of the Word is in the meaning."
I strongly disagree. The power of the Word is not in the meaning or who is handling...that would make God impotent. To think that mere humans by their own simple minds could strip the Word of its power is ridiculous.
Humans may twist the meaning, they may strip it--but the Word is still the "sword of the Spirit" despite the ways of men and the Holy Spirit IS working, even if us human beings do not realize it.
To think that we humans have the power to hinder the Holy Spirit is crazy--we have no such power.
For example, an ELCA pastor who baptizes a baby in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and uses the earthly element of water completes a valid baptism, even though he/she holds to false teaching. The Sacrament is not dependent on the person applying it...it's bigger than the person. As long as the Word is used with the elements, the Sacraments are valid.
IT
Michael,
You have confused the power of the instituting word with benefit of the Sacrament.
You find fault with the words "it is not the sounds but the meaning." I wonder why. Please explain. But I do have my suspicions because the WELS of late has been saying things close to the belief that the words act as magic, for example on the Q/A when they write that infants do not understand the Word, but we have baptism. So you can see why I wonder why an MLC student would have a problem with that truth.
Let me make it simple. The Reformed confess when they celebrate the Sacrament "This is not the body of Christ." If you were to approach the pastor of such a church and asked him what was in his hand, he would say "Bread." (And we can begin another thread on why receptionism is so dangerous.)
Why do you think it was such a tragedy for the Lutheran Church when the Union distribution formula, "Jesus said...." was instituted? (Incredibly used in one WELS church that I know.)
RTMM
The Donatists, just thougt of them. They were condemned for similar beliefs.
IT
"This is not the body of Christ"
I have friends who are PCA and the above wording is NOT what they use.
Are you stating that is the actually working they say during distribution or are you saying this is what they are "literally" saying because of their doctrinal beliefs.
FWIW, my friends who are PCA believe a "spiritual" presence and paedocommunion based off of covenant theology.
I think we need to be really careful in using the term "Reformed"...I know it offends my PCA friends to be lumped into a group they don't belong to. It's like using "Lutheran" to describe ALL Lutherans, it's hardly an accurate term.
IT
"The Donatists, just thougt of them. They were condemned for similar beliefs."
To clarify, I was speaking about the validity of the Sacrament being based on the person who is distributing it.
Sorry if I caused any confusion.
IT
Say the Reformed speak the words of institution exactly, does it make it valid? Maybe someone could point me to a place in the BOC to clarify. My primary concern is I'd like to receive the benefits of a valid sacrament, but, as this wanders a bit and I apologize, what of the Wisconsin view of the priesthood of all believers and the office of the ministry too. If a layperson or a vicar administers it, is it valid? "IF" WELS has an incorrect view of the office of the ministry, does it invalidate the sacrament? This is very interesting to me -- and important, not just a theological exercise -- so I appreciate your input.
Rob
Luther also instructed many following the reformation that both their baptisms and the mass they had been receiving was valid.
I have problem with your statement "it is not the sounds but the meaning" for the following.
Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord
*N.B. about context...speaking of Zwinglians"
"19] for they [the Smalcald Articles] declare: The bread and wine in the Holy Supper are the true body and blood of Jesus Christ, which are offered and received, not only by the godly, but also by godless Christians [those who have nothing Christian except the name]."
If a layperson or a vicar administers it, is it valid? "IF" WELS has an incorrect view of the office of the ministry, does it invalidate the sacrament? This is very interesting to me -- and important, not just a theological exercise -- so I appreciate your input.
Rob,
You struck a chord with me. As stated the WELS perspective on the OHM is different than it once was. What implications does this have for the Holy Supper? hmmm...
These are the things I'm trying to find out. I'm a relative newby to Lutheranism (over the past several years). I joined WELS over a year ago as it seemed the best option in our Lutheran-poor area. I joined so I could commune. As I get deeper into studying Wisconsin, it seems to me (and I could be wrong) less confessional than others unfortunately not available in our area, but at least available online.
I am interested in finding some confessional WELS churches to ask questions - this is how I stumbled upon your blog. I hear there are a few "strictly" confessional WELS and I'm trying to locate them to pose my questions.
Just trying to see where the best available options might be for someone in my "predicament."
God provides. And I'm thankful for your time.
Rob
First of all Michael. You "heartily encourage me to read up on the Sacraments." I think 'tis you, not I.
First of all Luther was speaking of Baptisms and Masses said in the Roman Church which were valid, not the Reformed Sacrament of the Altar. Two different animals on the issue of the Lord's Supper.
Secondly and most importantly. And you had better read a tad more carefully, no A LOT more carefully. The context, N.B. is indeed the Sacramentarians and the Formula quotes the SA AGAINST what the Sacramentarians teach. Read the sentence which precedes the one you quoted
"The Sacramentarians perverted the Formula of Concord (the Wittenberg Concord), that is, the above-mentioned articles of union, to their advantage, as saying that the body of Christ is offered with the bread in no other way than as it is offered, together with all His benefits, by the Word of the Gospel, and that by the sacramental union nothing else than the spiritual presence of the Lord Christ by faith is meant."
And please read the whole paragraph (TD VII 17-19)! The Lutheran theologians had to say what you quoted because the Sacramentarians found a loophope in the Wittenberg Concord. The paragraph in summary reads, The theologians had to write, because of the Sacramentarians perversion, the following (what you quoted.)
The Confessors where correcting the false theology of the Sacramentarians about the real presence which they taught was not there. They were not saying that the presence is there in the Sacramentarians Sacrament, but that their theology was wrong in saying that Scripture does not teach it is. They taught it wasn't, that is, that the words, "this is my body" do not mean "this is my body."
Both you, Michael and IT, are making the word magic. Yes, the power of the God's Word cannot be diminished, but what makes a word mean what it says? If I teach you that the word "forgiveness" means that you have to do good works to receive that forgiveness, that is, I say "I forgive you" means "I allow you to do such and such work to earn forgiveness" and I say "I forgive you." What do you appropriate by faith? Forgiveness of sins? (What those words truly mean.) No. You appropriates work righteousness, that is what you have been told those words say and that is what you believe.
Again, to you and IT. If I said to you "ego te absolvo." And you did not know Latin, what benefit would you receive from those sounds. Nothing. The words do not act like magic. If you did not know English and I said, "I forgive you." What benefit would you receive from those sounds? Nothing. Believe it or not, you have fallen into the Romanist error of ex opere operata.
So of course the Reformed pastor does not say the words "This is not my body." But what he says is "This is not my body." Ask him! By the way this was Luther's big gripe with the Reformed of his day (I will get you a nice quote in a bit, I have to dig it out) they changed the meaning of the words.
IT, the example of the ELCA baptism does not follow here. It is valid because the theology of the Trinity, the name and the essence of the Sacrament is correct, despite its other errors. The faith of the baptizer has nothing to do with the matter, it is the confession of the church/catechist that does.
IT, yes, one does need to be careful in lumping together "Reformed."
Rob and John, let’s settle this issue before we move on to WELS view of the ministry. Ok?
RTMM
And to clarify an earlier post, I would rather say you, Michael, have confused the essence (esse) of the Sacrament with the benefit (beneficium).
Or newbie, as it were.
Rob
Sounds good. So, the part of my inquiry we're seeking to settle is what makes a sacrament valid -- when, where, who, etc.
Thanks. I look forward to reading your responses.
RTMM,
Thank you for your clarification, however being about the Sacramentarians does not change the point.
A Sacramentarian preacher would have said "This is my my body" but meant "This is my body, but only in a spiritual way" (by the way this is also a view of some reformed dogmaticians)
Also read Smalkald Articles on the Mass, A Catholic priest says "This is my body" but means "I am making this Christ's body" and also "I am sacrificing this for Christ"
Yet Luther refers to Catholics having received the sacrament in such a mass, even as he wants the Roman Mass abolished
I do not wish to turn the sacrament into a magic show, however it is troubling that you would wish to take the comfort away from the sacrament by basing it on the person who offers it. (also tying into the OHM talk)
The essence AND the benefits have everything to do with Christ and nothing to do with the officiant, otherwise who would stand before God and find himself meriting of such an act?
RTMM,
Taking your view farther, showing how dangerous it is basing the sacrament on the faith of the officiant rather than on the merits of Christ given through the faith of the recipient.
What comfort is there in:
A pastor who could be saying the Words thoughtlessly?
A pastor who leaves the faith? Changes faith? Commits serious sins and is released from his call?
Under your charge it would not be a sacrament, Luther disagrees, from his large catechism:
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).
I would like to emphasize to all skimmers our there.
**For the Word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted does not become false because of the person or his unbelief.**
"If a layperson or a vicar administers it, is it valid?"
Yes, it is valid. My husband baptized all 3 of our children...the first when he was a sem student (almost 11 years ago in--see guys, I'm not Jennifer and I hate sharing more info about myself--but it's necessary here)..the 2nd when a vicar and the last after his ordination.
Are the baptism of my first 2 children not valid? Indeed they are. The only requirement for a valid baptism is the Word along with the element (in this case water).
We do call our pastors do preach the Word and administer the Sacraments. I believe we should allow them to function as we call them, but I don't think you can say that "only" pastors can perform the Sacraments. There are cases and special situations where a lay person might baptize a child or give someone communion...as long as the Word (as written in Scripture-no alterations) is used along with the elements, it is valid.
IT
IT,
I agree, although I fear many more will disagree with me on this than any of the previous.
We have an emergency baptism rite in the front of our hymnal, as did LW, as does the ELS hymnal (that is where my experience ends). What would differ the sacrament of Holy Communion so much that it is not valid if a lay person offers it?
Certainly if God's word is efficacious even with "knaves" (Dr. Luther) it is certainly true also with laypersons...although some consider being a layperson a worse offense.
There have been cases where Pastors have been sick or unable to administer the sacrament due to injuries...do you then deny the sacrament? No! An elder or vicar officiates. The Word spoken has power in and of itself, not in the speaker.
We call pastors to publicly preach the Word and administer the sacraments. Therefore in general, he is the person to be doing such things.
But do we condemn those who preach the Word to their friends and relatives? No we do not.
Do we deny the baptisms done in emergency circumstances or those above? No we do not.
Likewise we do not deny the efficacy of the sacrament of the altar for those done in extenuating circumstances where the pastor could not perform his duties.
Michael,
No one is basing the validity of the Sacrament on the faith of the officiant. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY! Once again, you have your straw man all prepared and ready to knock down.
You are not helping yourself.
If RTMM wrote what you claim, please go find it and quote it as proof.
IT,
Were those emergency baptisms?
Michael,
There is no emergency communion.
ANON @ 7:35
I'm lost, what post of MS are you referring to?
Also, could we come up with a new phrase other than "straw man?" It's fine I guess, just overused a bit. There has be a new term we could use.
IT
Michael,
Now be careful, for you have done this before on this thread. You have set up a straw man, (note how I will not illustrate how you do this, not just make the charge), you write,
"it is troubling that you would wish to take the comfort away from the sacrament by basing it on the person who offers it."
Nowhere do I say that. The validity of the Sacrament rests on the word. The Confession, fide quae, is that which tells us what the Word is, as I wrote, not the fides qua, the faith of the celebrant, as I wrote (and note how I show this from what I wrote) in regards to the validity of an ELCA baptism.
"The faith of the baptizer has nothing to do with the matter, it is the confession of the church/catechist that does."
Note that I carefully wrote the "confession" of the church and or catechist.
So likewise when you set up this straw
"The essence AND the benefits have everything to do with Christ and nothing to do with the officiant, otherwise who would stand before God and find himself meriting of such an act?"
Staw man, for nowhere do I say it has to do with the celebrant, but the word, and THE ISSUE AT HAND IS WHAT IS THE "WORD" that is used here. Not the mere sounds, but what those sounds mean. Please address my examples in regards to the words I forgive you."
Again your comparison to the Roman mass is a non sequitor. Rome attributes the Real Presence to the Word as well, with the error of the participation of the priest
So, Michael address the arguments that I have made and not those I have not. And yes, you still are asserting a position that makes the words magic, thus, ex opere operata, as I showed above.
RTMM
RTMM
I agree that the meaning of the Word is what makes it valid. However the Bible is absolute truth, and it true and powerful no matter what slant humans put on his words.
RTMM wrote(repeatedly) that it is the meaning of the words, as understood by the officiant, that made the sacrament valid.
5:04, 5:30, and 6:52
He has likewise in those same posts said that if one does not teach the sacrament properly there is not a valid sacrament.
RTMM said:
"Michael is incorrect. The Reformed do not have a valid Sacrament. They do not have the word, for they change the word "is" to mean "not is". The power of the Word is in the meaning."
However, they have the bread and the wine, and the Word. Thus, regardless of teaching, they have the sacrament.
Again, in refutation to RTMM Dr. Luther writes:
"13] Now here stands the Word of Christ: Take, eat; this is My body; Drink ye all of it; this is the new testament in My blood, etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word or regard it without the words, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. 14] But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive."
"Were those emergency baptisms?"
No. They were done immediately or shortly after birth. None of our children were baptized in church. Because we truly believe baptism is a work of the Holy Spirit, we chose to baptize our children ASAP and not until it was convienent for the family to gather so that we could have a party (not judging anyone else in this, it's just that would have been the only reason for us to wait).
Luther continually extols the role of the father as the head of the family. My husband felt strongly about baptizing his children and he would support any father that wished to baptize their children as well.
"There is no emergency communion."
I disagree. My grandmother, was on her deathbed. She wanted communion. The pastor was not available, but she was desperate...it was her last request before she slipped away from us. We had wine and we had bread (it was actually unleven bread due to our family's heritage), so my father communed her, using the Words of instituition from the hymnal. Less than 3 hours later, she left this life to be her Father. The pastor arrived 30 minutes after her passing...so there is such a thing as "emergency communion." It may not be common, but it does exist.
IT
Michael,
I just read you last post which I did not see before I posted my last. Had I seen that I would have scolded you even harder for the straw man you set up.
You have ignored these warnings in the past, do not do so now. Prove your assertions from the words written and answer the clear scenarios and questions I have put to you. Your view is magic, as I showed above. The Reformed have no presence in their "Sacrament" becausue they do not have the Word.
RTMM
RTMM,
Define Reformed please.
It's actually a very large group of people like I mentioned before.
Are talking about covenant theology here? Or more Arminianistic?
Reform is just too general for me, just as Lutheran tends to be with so many variances...
Thank you.
IT
Cousin IT,
(Sorry couldn't help myself). We will stop using the term "straw man" when Michael stops using that tactic, i.e. saying others say things they do not so he can disagree with them. If he persists then other appellations will be appropriate.
RTMM
Haha...on the cousin IT...:)...that made me smile just a bit. :)
IT
Mike,
I think you're getting confused between the CONFESSION OF THE CHURCH and the FAITH OF THE OFFICIANT.
RTMM et. al.
*HOLD THE PHONES! STOP THE PRESSES!*
I was wishing to speak to Rob in comfort about the forgiveness of sins he did truly receive in his LCMS.
I believe we are speaking past each other in the term "valid"
I nowhere wished to say that those who do not have a real presence view truly receive the benefits of the sacrament.
However, let me agree with you when you say confession (as I was through by the word catechist, which I took to mean teacher)
For if I am not told that I am receiving the true body and blood how would I believe it? And how are gifts of the spirit received if not by faith.
However if one is properly taught and told that it is the true body and blood and denies it or rejects it then he is rejecting the very forgiveness which is the promise of the sacrament.
My apologies for my misunderstanding of your words.
IT,
When speaking of the issue of the real presence (which is the matter under consideration at this time on this thread) whether you are Reformed or Ariminian the botton line is the same, the body and blood of Christ are not on the altar, in the hand of the clelebrant and in the mouth of the communicant. I know that there are varying views of the "presence" (symbolic, spiritual presence, a communion with the body of Christ in heaven via the Spirit) but the bottom line is the same, not here under the bread and wine.
But again as I noted, it other areas the lumping together is not helpful and there are so many, as you probably know better, it would be difficult to discuss them all here.
RTMM
RTMM,
Thanks for your last post..it did clear things up for me as to how you are approaching things. And yes, you are correct in that it would be difficult to discuss every varying aspect here.
IT
Also, please stop acting as if I purposely read your words and then "set up my straw man" for the expressed purpose of looking smart among and over you.
I am here not to look smart, but rather to gain knowledge and understanding.
If I have said something wrong. Please correct me in love. However, there will be times where I will misunderstand and be misunderstood.
Anonymous at 8:02 was dead on. I was fighting like the dickens about something that I knew to be true about the sacraments but had mistakenly viewed actually being said.
In view of that, based on the "confession of the church" rather than the "faith of the celebrant" I retract my statements about those who do not believe in the Real Presence. Their condemnation is deep rooted and comes from their confession not in their mishandling of the Sacrament, which is not present.
Thank you RTMM for the lesson in both dogmatics and logic.
Michael,
Thank you for your apology.
But there are still some matters. You write,
"I nowhere wished to say that those who do not have a real presence view truly receive the benefits of the sacrament."
Do you mean by that that the Reformed have no Sacrament? That is, that the body and blood of Christ are not present. Because you asserted they do. Have you reversed that view or do you still hold to it? (Or do you mean that someone said you said that they receive the true body and blood but not beneficially? I didn't.)
Also you write
"I believe we are speaking past each other in the term 'valid'"
No, I don't think we are. Either a) we agree and you think the Reformed enjoy the real presence as you originally wrote
"If a person denies the real presence, ie the reformed, they continue to take a 'valid' sacrament, however the body and blood is not for their benefit but for their (sic) judgment. (1 cor 11)"
So you say the body and blood are present, but present for judgment.
Or b) you have a different understanding of the word "valid" than that with which the Church operates.
It seems from your first post that you believe the Reformed enjoy the real presence in Sacrament then we are not speaking past one another. The whole discussion is in that vein. You are incorrect though, on your understanding of the real presence in the Reformed Sacrament. And if you do not agree you need to the issue of the Word and the questions I put to you on that. Everything hinges on that. You still are on record as having a view that it works as magic, sounds not meaning (thus your view that the Reformed have a valid sacrament, that is, the real presence.)
And as I was about to post this, I see that you posted again and wrote,
"Also, please stop acting as if I purposely read your words and then 'set up my straw man' for the expressed purpose of looking smart among and over you."
I certainly hope you did not address those words to me because did I say you "purposely" did this? No. I said you had done it before. Did I say you did it for the purpose of "looking smart." No, I said you don't read carefully and your theology is very weak here.
I have had many fathers who have corrected my theology and I, too, am sincerely grateful.
RTMM
RTMM, I believe I recanted previously when I said
"I retract my statements about those who do not believe in the Real Presence. Their condemnation is deep rooted and comes from their confession not in their mishandling of the Sacrament, which is not present."
Thus I must change from the proposed teacher to the one being taught because I am confused in this way...
I sent this to a professor of mine
"I have been taught on numerous occasions that the efficacy of the Sacraments rests on the Word and not the worthiness of the person giving the Sacraments.
However, Luther in his 1528 "Large Confession on the Supper" (part of Article VII of the Epitome of the Formula of Concord) writes, "...if they first changed God's Word and ordinance and interpreted it differently, as do the current enemies of the Sacrament. They admittedly have only bread and wine..."
Therefore why would the same not hold true for Baptism? We proclaim one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. But if the myriad of hetrodox churches believe, teach and confess incorrectly concerning baptism, that: Baptism is a washing away of only original and not actual sin; It is only a ceremonial washing. If the name of the trinity spoken is not believed and taught as it is taught in the Bible...etc etc etc. Why is one sacrament not invalidated by improper confession, yet the other not?"
Michael, you write,
"Therefore why would the same not hold true for Baptism? We proclaim one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. But if the myriad of hetrodox (sic) churches believe, teach and confess incorrectly concerning baptism, that: Baptism is a washing away of only original and not actual sin; It is only a ceremonial washing. If the name of the trinity spoken is not believed and taught as it is taught in the Bible...etc etc etc. Why is one sacrament not invalidated by improper confession, yet the other not?"
I will defer to Chemnitz (well, I always do) when he writes,
"Use surely does not make a Sacrament but the Word, ordinance and institution of Christ. And there is a difference between the essence of a Sacrament and its use." ("Ministry, Word and Sacrament" CPH 1981, translated by Luther Poellet, page 121)
Now, he wrote this in regards to the Sacrament of the Altar but he and the Lutheran Church applies this to baptism as well. (This is what I was referring to when I spoke of the esse or essence and the benefit (i.e. use) of the Sacrament in one of my posts. I was setting a Chemnitz trap.)
Most Lutheran theologians (though I hesitate to say all because there may be some who hold that these baptisms are not valid) hold that a Trinitarian Baptism (that is by those who hold to the Trinity and Baptism in the name of the Trinity) in the name of the Holy Trinity, the name being the work of Christ sent by the Father in the Spirit, is a valid one. The essence, word and element, are there. It is in the beneficium or use where they err. Again, errors in other areas do not invalidate the proper Word used with water act, granting that the word "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is not denied (i.e. as it is by non Trinitarian churches who yet use the so called Trinitarian formula).
The example of the Corinthians is a case in point, bad theology on the use of the Supper, but they had the Supper, the body and blood of Christ, nonetheless, and eaten, in their case, to their judgment.
RTMM
Thank you for your chemnitz trap, perhaps I should have been more inclined to catch myself falling into it. The exact edition of the Enchiridion that you used is sitting next to my laptop and has been all night. I cracked it many times but had not fallen on pg. 121.
Thank you for your work. If I understand correctly the following statements are true.
1) If a congregation holds to the real presence (esse) of The Sacrament of the Altar it is valid regardless of what they believe concerning the benefits. Thus drinking damnation.
2) If a congregation holds a view falsely about the essence, then it is not a sacrament they only have the bread and wine.
3) Thus the essence of the Sacrament of Baptism is in the trinitarian teaching not the teachings of the benefits. Thus the baptisms of the Baptists, Christian Reformed, Dutch Reformed, etc are valid, but if Arian was here, the baptism of his followers would not be (denied the deity of Christ)
Thank you for your time and your patience.
I would agree. And you 're welcome.
RTMM
Just for the record, the view espoused here by RTMM is exactly what the WELS teaches and what is taught at the Seminary. Just didn't want anyone to think that Mr. Schottey's (original) views represented the WELS position. They didn't--as he will realize once he gets to the Sem.
Anon. at 10:39,
Good to hear the WELS seminary agrees with the Catholic, i.e. Lutheran teaching, this time.
RTMM
it seems I realized my errors now thanks bee to God learning and edification can be done among brothers as well as in the classroom
Could it be said this way, that, as the sacrifice of Christ was for the sins of the whole world, only those who believe receive the benefit (that being salvation and belief not being a decision the individual makes - all glory to God)?
So, regarding Real Presence in the sacrament, when the ordinary elements of bread and wine are joined with the words of institution - a sacrament is made, because of Christ. But, to receive the benefits, you have to believe the Words of Christ - done for us for the remission of our sins (again, our belief not being a "choice" or decision we make with our own reason and intellect)? So, if the sacrament is valid with natural element and word, unbelief is to the recipients damnation?
This may be too much human reason and non-Scriptural or Confessional, so I welcome your input.
Thanks.
Rob
Rob,
Actually that is what the Scriptures and Confessions say. As you note, it is not reception of the Sacrament, it is receiving it in faith that brings us the benefit (that is, to receive worthily), faith alone.
RTMM
So my next conclusion would be that the sacrament is valid when "performed" with the words of institution despite a church being heterodox such as ELCA for instance? I wouldn't commune there because of not sharing their heterodox doctrine, but their sacrament would still be valid?
If this is true, and agreed that no church is "perfect," it is not necessary to have complete agreement with all the teachings of a congregation (or synod) to partake of a valid sacrament?
And, is it closed communion or close communion?
Thanks.
Rob
And, as previously inquired if we've settled my first question, what/where do the Confessions address the role of the pastor in the distribution and the permission of a non-clergy to distribute?
Thanks.
Rob
Rob,
Yes, the ELCA celebrates a valid sacrament (though that is now becoming a question because they are now beginning to equivocate on the real presence, but that’s another thread).
As to your second question,
"If this is true, and agreed that no church is 'perfect,' it is not necessary to have complete agreement with all the teachings of a congregation (or synod) to partake of a valid sacrament?"
No it is not necessary to have complete agreement with all the teachings of that church (granting they do not invalidate the Sacrament) to partake of a valid Sacrament, but there are other reasons we would pass on communing with them.
However, the judgment of a church as to whether it is 'perfect' or not is not based on the perfection of the congregation but the public confession of that church. Does this church correctly proclaim the Gospel and rightly administer the Sacraments (and not just have it in their constitutions or have the correct initials on their church sign and nauseatingly repeat, "we teach the word in its truth and purity.")
And you ask
"And, is it closed communion or close communion?"
Yes, and open too. Open to all who come in faith, closed to all who come impenitent or whose public life or confession would disrupt the communion, close (a kinder, gentler and new term coined so that we Lutherans don’t seem so cold) in that we have a communion with the Holy things and the Holy people.
And to your second post. Non-clergy, as you write may not administer the Sacraments. The Augsburg Confession, Article XIV forbids it, "No one should publicly teach in the Church, or administer the Sacraments, without a rightly ordered call."
RTMM
Wait a second, RTMM, do the Confessions say that non-clergy can't administer the sacrament or that those who are rightly called can't administer the sacrament? There's a difference.
Anon.
It is a distinction without a difference. The term "clergy" is understood in common language and in Lutheran discussions (as one hopes this is) to mean those rightly called into the Office (if you beleive there is one). That pastor who resigned his call is no longer a clergyman. That layman who is rightly called is a clergyman.
RTMM
RTMM,
OK, that explanation works for me. I just wanted to make sure that you believed that last sentence you wrote.
Anon.
I believe everything I write, unless I am shown it is wrong. Then I claim aliens took over my body.
RTMM
Thanks, I was wondering how closed communion instead. If you could direct me to where I could read more about that, I'd appreciate it.
Also, from what I understand, the debate lies within Lutheranism about which calls are being referred to with regards to who should distribute. Some teach only pastors and others teach any office in the church? I need to research more about calls.
What do you mean by "... to mean those rightly called into the Office (if you beleive there is one)."
You've been helpful.
Rob
Thanks, I was wondering how closed communion instead. If you could direct me to where I could read more about that, I'd appreciate it.
Also, from what I understand, the debate lies within Lutheranism about which calls are being referred to with regards to who should distribute. Some teach only pastors and others teach any office in the church? I need to research more about calls.
What do you mean by "... to mean those rightly called into the Office (if you beleive there is one)."
You've been helpful.
Rob
My last post was supposed to ask how closed communion became close instead. I'd be interested in reading the history behind the terms.
Sorry.
Rob
Rob,
I can't think of anything in particular to read in regards to the "closed" gave way to "close" issue. It just seemed to happen over time, especially in the 70's when conservative Lutherans didn't want to appear so cold by refusing some the Sacrament. As far as I am concerned neither term is all that useful as each can lead to misunderstandings.
You wrote,
"What do you mean by '... to mean those rightly called into the Office (if you beleive there is one).'"
Official WELS says that God did not establish an office of preaching the Gospel and administering the Sacraments but He instituted those functions (preaching and administering the Sacraments.) They say any way that gets done is ok as long as it is done orderly. Complicating their view is the view that everything done in the church is ministry, so whether you are a pastor or a custodian you are in the ministry. Further complicating that is their view that women may hold any of these ministries, even the pastorate as long as she does not exercise authority over a man (and I won't even go into all the double talk that goes on in regards to that issue.) Believe it or not, I know of one WELS church that decided not to have a woman principal in their parochial school (all the teachers were women) because she would have to tell the custodian what to do, a no-no.
For my part I believe that God instituted an office as Augsburg Confession V says.
RTMM
RTMM,
At my church we have lay people teaching adult Sunday School classes. As you noted, the Augsburg Confession, Article XIV says, "No one should publicly teach in the Church, or administer the Sacraments, without a rightly ordered call."
Does this mean that we shouldn't have lay people teaching these classes? Could my church "cure" this by calling these laymen to be Adult Sunday School teachers? Or does a rightly ordered call involve more than just installing them as teachers at our next worship service?
Thank you,
Paul
That is curious. Something must have been written with opposing views of "publicly" teach. Can anyone point me in the direction of some material about that? Preferably confessional material, but I probably don't use that adjective correctly.
Thanks for your patience with my inquiries. I'm sure much of this is basic stuff that someone who has been properly catechized should know. Unfortunately, the church I joined had Bible information classes which didn't study either catechism.
Rob
Paul,
I guess I would first of all ask why isn’t the pastor teaching these classes?
But to your question, these layman should be called, examined and ordained (which is what the rite vocatus includes). But let’s go back. Why do we examine our pastors as we do (this means that have been proven qualified, which the church does by Seminary training and by examining their doctrine.) Obvious, so they may meet the qualifications set down in Scripture (1 Timothy 3:1-8, Titus 1:5-11) because of the grave and important tasks they have. Should we expect any less from any one who assumes the office? I think not.
Sadly, many churches in the WELS do just that. But I ask, if a man is not qualified to be a pastor (whose call is to rightly preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments) then is he qualified to teach in the church? I always say, you can call any man you want, but he should be qualified and he should do the AC V things.
Now the WELS answer to your question (I am assuming you are WELS) is they have already been “called” as they have been asked or assigned to do this task and they are competent (or so they say) to do the job. The WELS would say that AC XIV has been met. But again, as I said above, if they are not qualified to assume the task of the pastorate (whose duties are nothing more than laid out in AC V and are qualified according to AC XIV) why should they have this little piece of the ministry pie. Should the qualifications be any less? I guess I would ask, are these men qualified to assume this office, and if so, call, examine and ordain them.
RTMM
Rob,
The term publicly (publice in Latin, offentlich in German)that is used in AC XIV has the sense of officially and for all to benefit from, as opposed to unofficially and hidden. Somehwat in the sense of what we mean when we say somone is a public official.
For a good study try to get Robert Preus' monograph "The Doctrine of the Call in the Lutheran Confessions and Lutheran Orthodoxy."
RTMM
Thanks, I'll check it out. I just finished reading (over the past year) Fire and Staff by Klemet Preus.
Rob
Post a Comment