tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post4535913804407646524..comments2023-04-26T04:36:47.052-05:00Comments on Bailing Water: Reformation and RestorationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-50083091399593963522008-11-08T21:47:00.000-06:002008-11-08T21:47:00.000-06:00Here is a workable link for the online essay on th...Here is a workable link for the online essay on the history of Communion Frequency in the Lutheran Church, to which Rob referred: <A HREF="http://tinyurl.com/ygkugt" REL="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/ygkugt</A><BR/><BR/>Rob's friendAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-40868972872745063972008-11-05T04:58:00.000-06:002008-11-05T04:58:00.000-06:00"... what will all this arguing really matter? You..."... what will all this arguing really matter? You men are ALL a bunch of time wasters."<BR/><BR/>"You guys need to take off this filter of confessional lutheranisms. This is not what Luther was searching for."<BR/><BR/>Jesus seemed to spend a few moments of His life explaining truth, yet it remained hidden from most. He also rebuked false teachers on occasion and warned of others to come. The Bible has a lot of words to say about such activity. The Reformers, too, wasted a lot of time arguing and a lot of paper defining and defending truth. It's sad that you see this quest as unnecessary yet today, or that a blog can't assist in this effort for some. Lutheranism is not a fight against all things Roman Catholic - it is a fight against error and a fight for truth.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-56461270172186392792008-11-04T22:53:00.000-06:002008-11-04T22:53:00.000-06:00Anon @7:28, normally I wouldn't comment, but your ...Anon @7:28, normally I wouldn't comment, but your statement simply is just foolishness. Are you Lutheran? Do you know what Church Fellowship is? Such “arguing,” as you put it, is in defense of the pure Word and of Confessional Unity in the Visible Church, to which we are directly exhorted in the Scriptures. In no way is such discussion a waste of time!<BR/><BR/>As for Anon @8:41, you sound alot like Anon @2:56, and I concur with Anon @9:20 – you show your colours by publicly expressing your disdain for the Lutheran Confessions. Instead, you envision “a new Lutheran Church,” which isn't Lutheran at all, but which, at most, offers only rhetorical platitudes to what it considers materially irrelevant in the modern era (i.e., the Lutheran Confessions). The fact is, Luther <I>did</I> intend a Church based on Biblical truth and Confessional unity, and the the Confessions which he is directly responsible for not only <I>define</I> Lutheranism but Biblical Christianity as well. The math is simple: take away the Confessions, and not only does Lutheranism disappear but so does the basis for unity in the Visible Church. By rejecting the Confessions you <I>cannot</I> be Lutheran, and therefore have little say in any <I>genuine</I> Lutheran setting. Indeed, you would make a fine C&C spokesperson.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I'm irked -- and probably wasting my time responding to this nonsense,<BR/><B>Freddy Finkelstein</B>Freddy Finkelsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15594126750060699424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-35016878057348799052008-11-04T21:20:00.000-06:002008-11-04T21:20:00.000-06:00"You guys need to take off this filter of con..."You guys need to take off this filter of confessional lutheranisms."<BR/><BR/>That sentence says it all. The C&C supporters are now telling us not to be Confessional Lutherans.<BR/><BR/>If only all C&C members were so honest and freely admitted they weren't Confessional Lutherans instead of pretending that they still are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-78273781333869121712008-11-04T20:41:00.000-06:002008-11-04T20:41:00.000-06:00Rob,Take off the blinders, please. The liturgy I ...Rob,<BR/>Take off the blinders, please. <BR/><BR/>The liturgy I talk about is one that could be. Any form of liturgy comes from men. Your point is moot. You seem to be groping for straws. For not being an expert and just a casual reader, you seem to draw some pretty defined conclusions.<BR/><BR/>Confessional Lutheran. Who coined that term?<BR/><BR/>You guys need to take off this filter of confessional lutheranisms. This is not what Luther was searching for. He was searching for truth and pure Christianity that the pagan RCC no longer possessed. Thank the Lord God granted him the Spirit that revealed it to him. We should all be so blessed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-27551955593145161572008-11-04T19:28:00.000-06:002008-11-04T19:28:00.000-06:00And in the end, when we stand before the Lord, wha...And in the end, when we stand before the Lord, what will all this arguing really matter? You men are ALL a bunch of time wasters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-14137500068370695732008-11-04T16:05:00.000-06:002008-11-04T16:05:00.000-06:00Anon 2:56, I asked who developed the liturgy you p...Anon 2:56, I asked who developed the liturgy you prefer? From what you've said here, it seems to be in line with Zwingli who, as a minimalist, opposed what has become the Anglican terminology of "high church." So your preferred form of worship comes from men as well. It's quite interesting that what you have just proposed is embraced by the Anglican movement to blend traditional with contemporary to satisfy both. <BR/><BR/>Calvin worked his liturgy too - all during the Reformation and having their foundation in the Roman Catholic liturgy of the time. But I am certainly not an expert. Just a casual reader and one trying to find out what it means to be a confessional Lutheran.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-32993667294560652612008-11-04T14:56:00.000-06:002008-11-04T14:56:00.000-06:00"But you think it is OK to follow other forms of w..."But you think it is OK to follow other forms of worship, other liturgies, developed by whom? Calvin and Zwingli?"<BR/><BR/>I never said that or implied it.<BR/><BR/>I can see a new Lutheran Church that has the elements of liturgical worship presented in much less of a high church manner with a music style that is more in line with the times. How is that Calvinistic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-81721136591989568962008-11-04T13:57:00.000-06:002008-11-04T13:57:00.000-06:00"Confessional Lutheran liturgy is not the end all ..."Confessional Lutheran liturgy is not the end all on worship. The Bible is."<BR/><BR/>And since the Bible is silent on much of worship, you would have us do what on Sunday? Why shouldn't the Lutheran church use Lutheran confessions to identify Lutheran practice? Whatever you think we should be doing or can be doing on Sundays is a form of liturgy developed by someone somewhere sometime. It just may not be Lutheran, which is fine, but shouldn't be the case for the Lutheran church. <BR/><BR/>You don't want the Lutheran church to follow its Confessions because they are too Roman for your tastes. But you think it is OK to follow other forms of worship, other liturgies, developed by whom? Calvin and Zwingli? Please show us where everything you think is acceptable in church is backed only by Scripture.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-229429647748331282008-11-04T13:56:00.000-06:002008-11-04T13:56:00.000-06:00"I counter with Lutheran High Church looking like ..."I counter with Lutheran High Church looking like the antichrist."<BR/><BR/>And this is where you reveal your ignorance of church history. The liturgy promoted by the "Lutheran High Church" existed long before the Roman Catholic church did. The Roman church only twisted what initially was good. So when Lutherans use the liturgy, they are looking like the ancient apostolic church, not the Roman Catholic church.<BR/><BR/>The case is entirely different when it comes to contemporary worship. Contemporary worship was designed by false teachers. It didn't start in orthodoxy and then get twisted later on. In fact, Lutherans who claim to be "adapting" contemporary worship are in essence the ones doing the twisting. Thus, when Lutherans use contemporary worship, they are looking like false teachers.<BR/><BR/>That's the big difference between the liturgy and contemporary worship--a difference which contemporary worship supporters either don't understand or don't talk about. The liturgy has its roots in orthodoxy. Contemporary worship has its roots in false teaching. <BR/><BR/>I simply don't understand the arrogance involved in saying, "Well, the apostles and ancient church fathers thought that the liturgy was the absolute best way to proclaim the gospel, but I think I'd rather use a worship style that was invented last decade by false teachers."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-25735726359810154042008-11-04T13:47:00.000-06:002008-11-04T13:47:00.000-06:00Anon @12:55,I'll respond very simply by suggesting...Anon @12:55,<BR/><BR/>I'll respond very simply by suggesting that you investigate a little more fully the reason for having Confessions. The simple explanation, given over and over by WELS and other Confessional Lutherans is enough to address this: It is <I>not</I> sufficient to say, "I believe everything the Bible says," because such a statement fails to answer the very next question, "What do you say the Bible says?" Confessions answer this question for us. In appealing to the Confessions, we are appealing to what we say the Bible says. In this regard, our Confessions are definitive -- even more so given that our agreement to the Lutheran Confessions is not just rhetorical, but carries with it the force of conscience, as we agree to our Confessions, not rhetorically, but as a matter of Christian Conscience. Read Ch. V of Krauth's <I>Conservative Reformation</I> on this specifically, and Preus' <I>Fire and the Staff</I> to see generally the importance and outworking of Confessions in our practice. And so it follows, being Confessionally literate is vitally important.<BR/><BR/><B>Freddy Finkelstein</B>Freddy Finkelsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15594126750060699424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-13541852937619492262008-11-04T12:55:00.000-06:002008-11-04T12:55:00.000-06:00"In closing this comment, I will state that w..."In closing this comment, I will state that while those who complain that frequency is not specified in the Scriptures, and so seemingly conclude we are completely free to hold communion every day or once a year (apparently for whatever reason comes to mind), or who pit the Word against the Sacrament by suggesting that the Word is sufficient without the Sacrament, are missing the fact that while the Bible does not prescribe worship practice, the Confessions very much seem to do so. It seems to me that this debate ought to, and eventually will, center on what the Confessions say about our liturgical Lutheran practice."<BR/><BR/>And therein lies the rub. Confessional Lutheran liturgy is not the end all on worship. The Bible is. I have nothing against the visible Means of Grace. My bone to pick is the prevailing ATTITUDE of it's staunch supporters. You elevate Luther to a type of Pope. As much as the C & C folks appear to be some rogue group espousing Evangelical Doctrine to YOU, I counter with Lutheran High Church looking like the antichrist. I am not judging hearts here, but what is good for the goose....bottom line is as long as worship is Biblical and our focus is on what God does for us and not what we do for God, we are OK. We are not to judge on the outward appearance, remember?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-80240010245808518842008-11-04T12:34:00.000-06:002008-11-04T12:34:00.000-06:00I'll also add, that like Rob (above), I claim no e...I'll also add, that like Rob (above), I claim no expertise in these matters. I am continuing to learn and am appreciative of those who are pointing us to the Confessions. As a result of getting into the Confessions more, and for the record, I must reject what seems to be the common explanation for why the Confessions are not diligently taught among us, that "they do not address issues that are disputed among us, or regarding which there is much confusion" (a summary of reasons I have heard/read over the past few years), and have begun to appreciate the words of Walther regarding the importance of a laity that is Confessionally literate: "The Book of Concord should be in every Lutheran home... If a person isn't familiar with this book, he'll think 'That old book is just for pastors... After working all day, I can't sit down and study in the evening. If I read my morning and evening devotions, that's enough.' No, that is not enough! The Lord doesn't want us to remain children, who are blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine; instead of that, He wants us to grow in knowledge so that we can teach others" (quote taken from the General Introduction of my <I>Reader's Edition</I> of the BOC).<BR/><BR/><B>Freddy Finkelstein</B>Freddy Finkelsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15594126750060699424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-53476164497998636952008-11-04T12:31:00.000-06:002008-11-04T12:31:00.000-06:00"It seems to me that this debate ought to, and eve..."It seems to me that this debate ought to, and eventually will, center on what the Confessions say about our liturgical Lutheran practice."<BR/><BR/>And therein lies the proverbial rub, I suspect. I don't think most of those who oppose weekly communion here are running to the Confessions to determine practice. There may be a few, as there are always exceptions to the rule, but there is a definite attitude toward the role of the Confessions within WELS that might hinder the fruition of your notion (as I paint with my broad brush, right?). I'll just say I'd be surprised. It would be intriguing. But I'm often wrong, so who knows.<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-50567372603260917332008-11-04T11:40:00.000-06:002008-11-04T11:40:00.000-06:00Rob and anon54321,Along with you (if I interpret y...Rob and anon54321,<BR/><BR/>Along with you (if I interpret your statements accurately), I am not ready to refer to those congregations who do not celebrate the Lord's Supper every Sunday as “in sin.” However, in browsing through AC XXIV and the Apology, I'm not convinced that failure to hold communion every Sunday isn't Confessional (and I intend by my use of double negative to <I>suggest</I> non-Confessional practice, rather than <I>accuse</I>). AC XXIV makes it clear that the Mass is the celebration of the Sacrament (including the liturgical apparatus of the Western Rite which surrounds it), vehemently defends against the accusation that Lutherans seek to abolish the Mass, stresses the importance of corporate Mass, and boasts that Lutherans hold communion <I>every Sunday</I>, and then also at additional times during the week, if the people want it.<BR/><BR/>Browsing further through Vol. 53 of Luther's Works, <I>Liturgy and Hymns</I>, it is apparent how Luther sought to carry out our Confession in practice. In <I>An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church at Wittenberg</I>, Luther states that “properly speaking, the mass consists in using the Gospel <I>and</I> communing at the table of the Lord,” and makes clear that the freedom enjoyed in our liturgical choices applies to specific liturgical orders within the Western Rite, not to definitions of the Mass. In the introductory comments preceding this section, the editor presents the fact that it was Luther's introduction of substantive preaching to the Mass that was worthy of note, adding use of the Word to the Sacramental rite. Accordingly, it is also in this section that Luther states, “the Word is important and not the Mass.” However, his words apply to the practice of <I>daily mass</I>, in which the Word was not present. At no time (that I have read so far) does Luther advocate removing the Sacrament from the Divine Service – the main service of the week.<BR/><BR/>In <I>The German Mass and Order of Service</I>, Luther makes several points indicating his understanding of how our Confessions ought to be carried out, including the following: (1) Mass was offered every Sunday; (2) Services outside of the Divine Service (Sunday Mass), there was no sacrament; (3) Matins and Vespers were offered every day, and included lessons not only from Biblical texts but also covering topics supporting the catechism; (4) It was important that teaching the Bible included an effort to preserve ecclesiastical language and terminology. For example, schoolboys were taught the Bible in Latin and were expected to participate in daily Matins/Vespers by reciting, reading, and singing the Biblical texts in Latin, sometimes also in German for the benefit of everyone present, but not to the exclusion of languages not universally understood. Preaching was in the vernacular, but it wasn't at all necessary that <I>all</I> parts of the service reject everything but simple vernacular – indeed, proper teaching <I>required</I> that ecclesiastical languages be used so that the people would come to understand them. (5) The lesser, <I>daily services</I>, i.e., Matins/Vespers, were primarily for the benefit of the young and the unlearned. These were the services that were flexible enough to cater to their weaknesses (indeed, even Luther stated that it was necessary to mix-it-up a little in these lesser services, to hold the attention of the weak and keep them coming to church, otherwise, the churches would empty). Luther did not speak this way of the Divine Service, however. I would add as worth noting, that “mixing-it-up to hold the interest of the weak” was for the purpose of building up the weak and ignorant, to draw them into teaching of ecclesiastical languages/terminology and by engaging in additional catechesis, not for the purpose of pandering to and perpetuating their weaknesses and ignorance. (6) Finally, while there is liberty in the choice of specific liturgical order, the validity of an order is dependent upon its proper use. <I>Proper use is a function of catechesis!</I> If the people are not properly catechized regarding the orders they use, they will not use them beneficially.<BR/><BR/>I could go on, but this is getting long. There are other examples from Luther which apply, such as his desire the there be liturgical unity in the various regions of Germany (I take these “regions” as analogous to "Synods" within Lutheranism, today). Chemnitz, in his <I>Examen</I> also has much to say regarding the Mass and adiaphora. I plan, next, to begin browsing through my four-volume set for his advice on this topic, as well. <BR/><BR/>In closing this comment, I will state that while those who complain that frequency is not specified in the Scriptures, and so seemingly conclude we are completely free to hold communion every day or once a year (apparently for whatever reason comes to mind), or who pit the Word against the Sacrament by suggesting that the Word is sufficient without the Sacrament, are missing the fact that while the Bible does not prescribe worship practice, the Confessions very much seem to do so. It seems to me that this debate ought to, and eventually will, center on what the Confessions say about our liturgical Lutheran practice.<BR/><BR/>My thoughts,<BR/><B>Freddy Finkelstein</B>Freddy Finkelsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15594126750060699424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-56913457164533107052008-11-04T11:27:00.000-06:002008-11-04T11:27:00.000-06:00Anon54321, I'm certainly no authority on the deter...Anon54321, I'm certainly no authority on the determination of what is heterodox concerning communion frequency. So, I was defending cyber-reputation (vanity) and not the others who made the statement.<BR/><BR/>There are many more learned than me about the subject. It appears it's been debated among Lutherans for years. I find a strong argument for weekly communion (and more) being a Confessional Lutheran practice (with some scriptural support), but it doesn't appear to be common today. Does that make it heterodox? There are other doctrinal differences among Lutheranism that certainly do. I don't think an ELCA church practicing weekly communion makes it orthodox. <BR/><BR/>But language is important and we all tend to use the broad stereotypical brush. And there is passion on both sides. I agree, weekly communion is very important and ideal - and something for which to strive when there are people asking for it. I don't think it's an easy change for the pastor to implement, especially if the attitudes of those on this blog are representative of what is found in the local parishes. But it is ideal. <BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-66715587940674064872008-11-04T08:08:00.000-06:002008-11-04T08:08:00.000-06:00Thanks Rob. I think by clarifying that these chur...Thanks Rob. I think by clarifying that these churches are not "definitely in the wrong" (which I think the article *does* imply) you go a long way to bridging the gap with those who accuse of legalism. Very important and ideal, yes, but heterodox? No.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-81667401022643163032008-11-03T23:04:00.000-06:002008-11-03T23:04:00.000-06:00Anon @ 12:55pmWhenever Roman Catholicism comes up ...Anon @ 12:55pm<BR/><BR/>Whenever Roman Catholicism comes up in discussions such as this one, 99 out of 100 times the person making the comparison shows ignorance of church history.<BR/><BR/>I still wonder, however, how we can claim that we are freed by the Gospel not to proclaim the Gospel through the means of the visible Word.RandomDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03787185732614416948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-31139661192942389522008-11-03T22:59:00.000-06:002008-11-03T22:59:00.000-06:00Why is offering communion every Sunday legalistic?...Why is offering communion every Sunday legalistic? Offering isn't coercing. There may be some that desire to take it weekly. Is that a sin? If we truly believe in "Gospel in Word and Sacrament", then why wouldn't we want to provide the opportunity to receive the Lord's Supper weekly (or every service for that matter)?<BR/>Those that chose not to take communion every Sunday are not restricted either way. Those that do are limited when the frequency is limited.<BR/><BR/>A pastoral recommendation that a parishioner seek another WELS church on alternate Sundays to fulfill his desire to receive the sacrament weekly is utter nonsense. I(a WELS member)would consider transferring to a confessional Missouri Synod church that communes weekly (there are several in my area).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-10656945312747087532008-11-03T21:12:00.000-06:002008-11-03T21:12:00.000-06:00Since I've posted a lot on this thread, I don't th...Since I've posted a lot on this thread, I don't think I ever said they were definitely in the wrong, but am arguing for the ideal. There is much not defined in Scripture about many topics including worship. <BR/><BR/>For a review of Lutheran history on the subject, I found this link: http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.communionfreq.html to be informative. (Sorry, I don't know how to make it an active link.)<BR/><BR/>RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-63881322261558582032008-11-03T20:44:00.000-06:002008-11-03T20:44:00.000-06:00"No one really replied to my question yet... ..."No one really replied to my question yet... it is about halfway down the discussion now. I understand the argument of every Sunday communion and it sounds pretty good to me and ideal. What I am wondering is how you can say that those not practicing every-Sunday communion are definitively in the wrong when Scripture doesn't attach a frequency to the words "do this" ?"<BR/><BR/>Because they can't. OMG they are wrapped up because someone used a vulgar word. None have responded to what I thought were some thought provoking observances either...<BR/><BR/>"Although I don't disagree with the article, there is a real danger in attitude that is not unlike the very church we 'reformed' from. Attitudes about the mass that it should be required on a weekly basis is not only legalistic but is works righteousness. Nowhere in the Bible is this order of worship in this much detail laid out. The very idea of imposing such an attitude puts the emphasis on Law instead of Gospel. The Bible says that if I am baptized by water and the Spirit, I am going to heaven. Period. These are the only requirements and are the invisible means of Grace. Do I want to partake of Lord's Supper? Absolutely every opportunity I get. Is it a requirement for eternal life? Absolutely NOT! From what I have observed in some churches, there may be more of an opportunity if offered weekly of sending more people to damnation because they go on living in sin that they are unwilling to acknowledge. (ie extramarital affairs) Even the ancient Jews only celebrated the Passover once a year.<BR/><BR/>This talk of 'Mass' smacks of so much Roman Catholicism I would think we would want to distance ourselves from this form of ceremonial worship instead of mimicking the very 'church' we have singled out as the antichrist. You guys single out groups like C & C as bodies that are hiding their Lutheranism and yet you want to instill a form of worship that looks like the antichrist! Luther got alot of things right, but he was still a Roman Catholic. Don't get me wrong. I cherish my Lutheran heritage. But it is wrong to hold to a book written by men as the end all on how to worship. We must always go back to the Word. The Living Water of the Word. Jesus is the Word. This is what saves. This is what being Lutheran is all about. Grace by faith alone. Maybe we need a new reformation and we will be called the Neo-Lutherans."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-77111319477166581062008-11-03T19:24:00.000-06:002008-11-03T19:24:00.000-06:00No one really replied to my question yet... it is ...No one really replied to my question yet... it is about halfway down the discussion now. I understand the argument of every Sunday communion and it sounds pretty good to me and ideal. What I am wondering is how you can say that those not practicing every-Sunday communion are definitively in the wrong when Scripture doesn't attach a frequency to the words "do this" ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-74083000632294834232008-11-03T18:58:00.000-06:002008-11-03T18:58:00.000-06:00What does the blog-personality judgment of anonymo...What does the blog-personality judgment of anonymous posters as "pricks" have to do with whether or not we should pursue weekly communion? I preferred confessional crusader or confessional elite, personally. But prick is probably regrettably accurate as well, though it would be difficult to judge someone as such just because they write sarcastically or it is interpreted in that manner. But regardless of the lack of PC-personableness, shouldn't it be assessed by what is best practice and doctrinally correct? <BR/><BR/>The frustration for those endorsing and those rejecting weekly communion inevitably results in personal accusations at the expense of the discussion. <BR/><BR/>And yes, I've discussed this with my pastor and we went from once a month to twice a month. The idea of weekly communion seemed to be received somewhat incredulously - too Roman and elevating the sacrament to the level of the Word - it would be abused or taken for granted at the least.<BR/><BR/>Prick RobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-30829640051371442382008-11-03T17:41:00.000-06:002008-11-03T17:41:00.000-06:00RE: "If a "Lutheran" pastor can't understand why s...RE: "If a "Lutheran" pastor can't understand why someone would want the Sacrament every Lord's day he is a pretty worthless pastor, and his associate who defends him is likewise."<BR/><BR/>Are you literate?<BR/><BR/>The associate wasn't defending his senior pastor at all! He was talking about how frustrating it is to deal with him.<BR/><BR/>It's more than a little ironic that those who best hear the gentle invitation of the Lord to sit at his supper table are the ones who are anything but gentle in rebuking others who can't hear quite so well. Why is that?<BR/><BR/>RE: "It wasn't sacrasm [sic] by the way (offending the senior pastor) that is what YOU reported. What a pathetic bunch."<BR/><BR/>No, he didn't say he was afraid of offending the senior pastor (that was your unloving assumption). He merely stated that the senior pastor was not open to his desire to offer the Sacrament weekly. How sad that you would call a faithful pastor who desires to feed his flock "pathetic".<BR/><BR/>RE: "Isn't that part of the beauty. It is worth supporting it IN SPITE OF the fact that they are such pricks"<BR/><BR/>Yes, that's true, but it would be a whole lot easier to convince more people about the value of weekly communion if they wouldn't be such pricks. Just broaching the topic of weekly communion in many circles draws automatic resistance, not because the people are necessarily opposed, but simply because they figure you must be one of those Magpie jerks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8818242304034182219.post-45938804462361096712008-11-03T16:05:00.000-06:002008-11-03T16:05:00.000-06:00Isn't that part of the beauty. It is worth suppor...Isn't that part of the beauty. It is worth supporting it IN SPITE OF the fact that they are such pricksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com