Communion Reception

[Steven W Bohler]

Peter:
Part of the problem with some other denominations is that it isn't clear and certain. Someone consecrating the elements with no sacramental understanding lacks the intent to consecrate.
Me:
So receiving in those other denominations is worthless because the one presiding doesn't know enough to "intend" it?

As i said, it is not clear or certain. You take that to mean I think it is clearly and certainly worthless. Which is typical and one of the reasons dialog with you is generally such a waste.

What constitutes consecrating the elements? I would think it perfectly reasonable to say the intent to consecrate the elements has to be part of the equation or we'll dealing at the level of magical incantations. And since it is unclear what someone who doesn't believe in the sacraments intends by consecrating the elements, it is unclear/uncertain what it actually accomplishes.

And how will anyone know the actual intentions of an LCMS or ELCA pastor when they speak those words? It has happened that pastors end up denouncing the faith they once proclaimed. In years past, priest could be declared heretics when they began preaching/teaching false doctrines. Coming to recognize their heresies, did that nullify all the consecrations they had done previously? (I think not.)

Paul does not counsel presiders to examine themselves, but those who are receiving the sacrament. (Certainly presiders should be examining themselves as co-recipients of the sacrament.)


What about the presider who is holding a grudge against a church member or fellow pastor. There is likely a part of him who would not like to see that person be forgiven by God through the sacrament. Could that taint of sin cause God to refuse to consecrate the elements? (I think not.)

That is why I said "the pastor/church" and not just "the pastor".  Does the church (that is, the congregation) intend to give just bread and wine, or the Body and Blood?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Peter:
Part of the problem with some other denominations is that it isn't clear and certain. Someone consecrating the elements with no sacramental understanding lacks the intent to consecrate.
Me:
So receiving in those other denominations is worthless because the one presiding doesn't know enough to "intend" it?

As i said, it is not clear or certain. You take that to mean I think it is clearly and certainly worthless. Which is typical and one of the reasons dialog with you is generally such a waste.

What constitutes consecrating the elements? I would think it perfectly reasonable to say the intent to consecrate the elements has to be part of the equation or we'll dealing at the level of magical incantations. And since it is unclear what someone who doesn't believe in the sacraments intends by consecrating the elements, it is unclear/uncertain what it actually accomplishes.

And how will anyone know the actual intentions of an LCMS or ELCA pastor when they speak those words? It has happened that pastors end up denouncing the faith they once proclaimed. In years past, priest could be declared heretics when they began preaching/teaching false doctrines. Coming to recognize their heresies, did that nullify all the consecrations they had done previously? (I think not.)

Paul does not counsel presiders to examine themselves, but those who are receiving the sacrament. (Certainly presiders should be examining themselves as co-recipients of the sacrament.)


What about the presider who is holding a grudge against a church member or fellow pastor. There is likely a part of him who would not like to see that person be forgiven by God through the sacrament. Could that taint of sin cause God to refuse to consecrate the elements? (I think not.)

That is why I said "the pastor/church" and not just "the pastor".  Does the church (that is, the congregation) intend to give just bread and wine, or the Body and Blood?

The answer is "yes". They receive both bread and wine AND body and blood.

[Steven W Bohler]

Peter:
Part of the problem with some other denominations is that it isn't clear and certain. Someone consecrating the elements with no sacramental understanding lacks the intent to consecrate.
Me:
So receiving in those other denominations is worthless because the one presiding doesn't know enough to "intend" it?

As i said, it is not clear or certain. You take that to mean I think it is clearly and certainly worthless. Which is typical and one of the reasons dialog with you is generally such a waste.

What constitutes consecrating the elements? I would think it perfectly reasonable to say the intent to consecrate the elements has to be part of the equation or we'll dealing at the level of magical incantations. And since it is unclear what someone who doesn't believe in the sacraments intends by consecrating the elements, it is unclear/uncertain what it actually accomplishes.

And how will anyone know the actual intentions of an LCMS or ELCA pastor when they speak those words? It has happened that pastors end up denouncing the faith they once proclaimed. In years past, priest could be declared heretics when they began preaching/teaching false doctrines. Coming to recognize their heresies, did that nullify all the consecrations they had done previously? (I think not.)

Paul does not counsel presiders to examine themselves, but those who are receiving the sacrament. (Certainly presiders should be examining themselves as co-recipients of the sacrament.)


What about the presider who is holding a grudge against a church member or fellow pastor. There is likely a part of him who would not like to see that person be forgiven by God through the sacrament. Could that taint of sin cause God to refuse to consecrate the elements? (I think not.)

That is why I said "the pastor/church" and not just "the pastor".  Does the church (that is, the congregation) intend to give just bread and wine, or the Body and Blood?

The answer is "yes". They receive both bread and wine AND body and blood.

Really?  So they are receiving it without recognizing it?  Doesn't St. Paul warn against that?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Peter:
Part of the problem with some other denominations is that it isn't clear and certain. Someone consecrating the elements with no sacramental understanding lacks the intent to consecrate.
Me:
So receiving in those other denominations is worthless because the one presiding doesn't know enough to "intend" it?

As i said, it is not clear or certain. You take that to mean I think it is clearly and certainly worthless. Which is typical and one of the reasons dialog with you is generally such a waste.

What constitutes consecrating the elements? I would think it perfectly reasonable to say the intent to consecrate the elements has to be part of the equation or we'll dealing at the level of magical incantations. And since it is unclear what someone who doesn't believe in the sacraments intends by consecrating the elements, it is unclear/uncertain what it actually accomplishes.

And how will anyone know the actual intentions of an LCMS or ELCA pastor when they speak those words? It has happened that pastors end up denouncing the faith they once proclaimed. In years past, priest could be declared heretics when they began preaching/teaching false doctrines. Coming to recognize their heresies, did that nullify all the consecrations they had done previously? (I think not.)

Paul does not counsel presiders to examine themselves, but those who are receiving the sacrament. (Certainly presiders should be examining themselves as co-recipients of the sacrament.)


What about the presider who is holding a grudge against a church member or fellow pastor. There is likely a part of him who would not like to see that person be forgiven by God through the sacrament. Could that taint of sin cause God to refuse to consecrate the elements? (I think not.)

That is why I said "the pastor/church" and not just "the pastor".  Does the church (that is, the congregation) intend to give just bread and wine, or the Body and Blood?

The answer is "yes". They receive both bread and wine AND body and blood.

Really?  So they are receiving it without recognizing it?  Doesn't St. Paul warn against that?

Huh? What aren't they recognizing? Perhaps the most unrecognizable thing is that the flat wafers are called "bread". (Hmmm, I just had a thought about flat Jesus.) They are told in the words of institution - and in the words of distribution (which I said to every communicant): "The body of Christ given for you."

[Steven W Bohler]

Peter:
Part of the problem with some other denominations is that it isn't clear and certain. Someone consecrating the elements with no sacramental understanding lacks the intent to consecrate.
Me:
So receiving in those other denominations is worthless because the one presiding doesn't know enough to "intend" it?

As i said, it is not clear or certain. You take that to mean I think it is clearly and certainly worthless. Which is typical and one of the reasons dialog with you is generally such a waste.

What constitutes consecrating the elements? I would think it perfectly reasonable to say the intent to consecrate the elements has to be part of the equation or we'll dealing at the level of magical incantations. And since it is unclear what someone who doesn't believe in the sacraments intends by consecrating the elements, it is unclear/uncertain what it actually accomplishes.

And how will anyone know the actual intentions of an LCMS or ELCA pastor when they speak those words? It has happened that pastors end up denouncing the faith they once proclaimed. In years past, priest could be declared heretics when they began preaching/teaching false doctrines. Coming to recognize their heresies, did that nullify all the consecrations they had done previously? (I think not.)

Paul does not counsel presiders to examine themselves, but those who are receiving the sacrament. (Certainly presiders should be examining themselves as co-recipients of the sacrament.)


What about the presider who is holding a grudge against a church member or fellow pastor. There is likely a part of him who would not like to see that person be forgiven by God through the sacrament. Could that taint of sin cause God to refuse to consecrate the elements? (I think not.)

That is why I said "the pastor/church" and not just "the pastor".  Does the church (that is, the congregation) intend to give just bread and wine, or the Body and Blood?

The answer is "yes". They receive both bread and wine AND body and blood.

Really?  So they are receiving it without recognizing it?  Doesn't St. Paul warn against that?

Huh? What aren't they recognizing? Perhaps the most unrecognizable thing is that the flat wafers are called "bread". (Hmmm, I just had a thought about flat Jesus.) They are told in the words of institution - and in the words of distribution (which I said to every communicant): "The body of Christ given for you."

And they do not believe those words.  They believe it only represents His Body and Blood but are still only bread and wine.  So, if they ARE the Body and Blood then you are left with St. Paul's words of warning and condemnation.  Is that what you believe about their reception?

[Harvey_Mozolak]

First, an apology for not including the Orthodox.
I assume they will ride alongside the Roman Catholics and what I am hearing from most of the posts is that Lutherans, whether male or female clergy, are in the vehicle also. (I think I am hearing this by most of us.) I also think there is the possibility that in the trunk of many is the possibility of lay people celebrating under some very special circumstances... like an authorization by a church body (which I think a couple of Lutheran churches have done) and say at times like soldiers far removed from chaplains may have been authorized also and I would guess that people in gulags and prisoner of war camps and probably hunkered down in a subway in Kiev will be given a provisional pass by many.   Another part of the dividing line for many in the whole ordination question is the hearing of confession but that line will get waving because all allow for some form of Christian to Christian confession which may be kept sealed voluntarily and as long as one does not have to face the State, a moot issue that way.  Where does that leave us? 

[Harvey_Mozolak]

I think I may have referenced this before but in a gathering of about a dozen or more Roman priests, both a few active and most retired I heard them tell me that we can "make Jesus" from the lips of the retired but from the younger and still active ones... "no you cannot"-- and again the reason was not being ordained in apostolic succession.  Now that was a score of years ago when I was active as a guest within such a group and I do not know how it would be fielded today.  Perhaps one of our Roman brothers can add some clarity.   

[Brian Stoffregen]

Peter:
Part of the problem with some other denominations is that it isn't clear and certain. Someone consecrating the elements with no sacramental understanding lacks the intent to consecrate.
Me:
So receiving in those other denominations is worthless because the one presiding doesn't know enough to "intend" it?

As i said, it is not clear or certain. You take that to mean I think it is clearly and certainly worthless. Which is typical and one of the reasons dialog with you is generally such a waste.

What constitutes consecrating the elements? I would think it perfectly reasonable to say the intent to consecrate the elements has to be part of the equation or we'll dealing at the level of magical incantations. And since it is unclear what someone who doesn't believe in the sacraments intends by consecrating the elements, it is unclear/uncertain what it actually accomplishes.

And how will anyone know the actual intentions of an LCMS or ELCA pastor when they speak those words? It has happened that pastors end up denouncing the faith they once proclaimed. In years past, priest could be declared heretics when they began preaching/teaching false doctrines. Coming to recognize their heresies, did that nullify all the consecrations they had done previously? (I think not.)

Paul does not counsel presiders to examine themselves, but those who are receiving the sacrament. (Certainly presiders should be examining themselves as co-recipients of the sacrament.)


What about the presider who is holding a grudge against a church member or fellow pastor. There is likely a part of him who would not like to see that person be forgiven by God through the sacrament. Could that taint of sin cause God to refuse to consecrate the elements? (I think not.)

That is why I said "the pastor/church" and not just "the pastor".  Does the church (that is, the congregation) intend to give just bread and wine, or the Body and Blood?

The answer is "yes". They receive both bread and wine AND body and blood.

Really?  So they are receiving it without recognizing it?  Doesn't St. Paul warn against that?

Huh? What aren't they recognizing? Perhaps the most unrecognizable thing is that the flat wafers are called "bread". (Hmmm, I just had a thought about flat Jesus.) They are told in the words of institution - and in the words of distribution (which I said to every communicant): "The body of Christ given for you."

And they do not believe those words.  They believe it only represents His Body and Blood but are still only bread and wine.  So, if they ARE the Body and Blood then you are left with St. Paul's words of warning and condemnation.  Is that what you believe about their reception?

Why are "they" who are not believing those words? Should I receive communion at a Presbyterian or UCC Congregation I certainly believe those words regardless of what others or even the presider might believe.


As I've said before, I think that applying Paul's words to the elements is a misinterpretation. He only talks about "discerning the body," which can just as easily be understood as the community of believers. And, as I said above, his words are addressed to those receiving communion, not the presider.

[Timothy Schenks]

The Confessions do say that you can receive the Sacrament from evil men (Augustana ARTICLE VIII). But why would you want to?

[Brian Stoffregen]

The Confessions do say that you can receive the Sacrament from evil men (Augustana ARTICLE VIII). But why would you want to?

Because I want the tangible presence of Jesus and the benefits that he brings with him. Also, because he said to do this often.


In addition, the evil man may be extremely poor at preaching the gospel, but I am certain to receive God's grace and forgiveness in the sacrament (which I may especially need considering my thoughts towards the preacher after enduring his sermon).

[Timothy Schenks]

The Confessions do say that you can receive the Sacrament from evil men (Augustana ARTICLE VIII). But why would you want to?

Because I want the tangible presence of Jesus and the benefits that he brings with him. Also, because he said to do this often.


In addition, the evil man may be extremely poor at preaching the gospel, but I am certain to receive God's grace and forgiveness in the sacrament (which I may especially need considering my thoughts towards the preacher after enduring his sermon).

I'd rather find a faithful pastor/congregation.

[Charles Austin]

I would rather not have to make the final decision on who is perfectly "faithful," but trust that God does what God promises to do when the sacrament is celebrated.