They chose to use grape juice in solidarity with those trying to remain sober and because some of them could not drink wine with the medications they drink (and probably because the single serving packets are readily available from nearly every Baptist or evangelical supplier). They mail them as far as Hawaii, Washington, and South Dakota. Jesus by Mail packets come with a helpful reminder to dispose of the remains and packaging faithfully by gifting them to the earth (whatever that is supposed to mean).
So what do you think? Simply goofy. . . or worse. I vote for worse. Whether they sit at home and put their packets to the screen during the consecration or get it by mail, this is NOT what our Lord intended and is, in fact, a sacrilege to the Body and Blood of Christ. It it not helpful ministry to the homebound to leave them home alone with Jesus by Mail packets. It is not faithful ministry nor is it faithful stewardship of the mystery.
Sadly, too many Lutherans will think this is a good idea. Even worse, no Lutheran in leadership in the ELCA or in most Lutheran bodies has the gumption to stand up and say enough already! One more sign the ELCA is in decline. For it you have Jesus by Mail, why do you need a congregation at all? Maybe just a mailing list and an endless supply of hermetically sealed Jesus packets and some money for postage and you are all set. . . indeed!
37 comments:
I am an LCMS pastor in Texas. I don’t understand how any Lutheran pastor, ELCA or other, can rationalize that this practice is okay? This is a fellowship meal, a pinnacle of confessional unity. Jesus by mail...sigh.
Interesting post. Thanks!
Since the ELCA as a church body has formally denied the Biblical and Confessional doctrine of the Lord's Supper via its many "full communion" agreements with a slew of Reformed churches, including even the wildly anti-Trinitarian and anti-Christian liberal church: the United Church of Christ, it machts nicht what they do with the Supper. All they have anyway is bread and wine/grape juice.
Why not?
"Catching up on some reading..."
Surely there must be something better to read... I mean... even the Lutheran Witness or some glossy Purple Palace publication...
The XXXA is an apostate religious organization so its publication, Living Lufauxran has little if anything to do with Christianity other than promoting sacrilege.
BTW, if you read the "Special delivery" article on p. 36, did you manage to read ten pages further? There you would have found an interview of Austin Channing Brown, author of the book I'm Still Here: Black Dignity in a World Made for Whiteness, in which she claims "White people are exhausting." In her book Brown also capitalizes "Black," while she does not capitalize "white." Maybe it was too exhausting.
I am not surprised at all. This is clearly the fruit of Luther's heresy of consubstantiation. Unfortunately for Lutherans of his time, he still confected a valid although illicit Eucharist in light of the seal of the priesthood that he received at his "valid" ordination.
What you receive now is only bread and wine, nothing more.
Lutherans don't believe in consubstantiation but the sacramental union of Christ's supernatural (illocal) body and blood with the bread and wine. It is not a physical but a substantial real presence. Read the Wittenberg Concord and the Formula of Concord, not Wayne Grudem. We do not eat Christ's body Capernaitically.
Anon 10:45, okay I'll take the bait and bite...
Lutherans DO NOT, EVER confess Consubstantiation (that's not what Scripture and the Book of Concord teaches), nor the later innovation of the Scholastics with Transubstantiation; nor is there any such thing in Scripture of an "Indelible Character" nor some made-up "Apostolic Succession" dependent solely upon having the right man touching another man for the Sacraments to work. Really?!
Sometimes its difficult to keep up with the newer, man-made teachings and innovations of Rome, when as true Lutherans we desire to be catholic; so ironically, true Lutherans are more catholic than Rome. Luther introduces no new teaching!
I. We confess, according to the words of Irenaeus, that the Eucharist consists of two things, one earthly and one heavenly. Therefore they think 3 and teach that Christ’s body and blood are truly and substantially present, exhibited, and taken with the bread and wine.
II. And although they deny that transubstantiation occurs and do not think that a local enclosing [of Christ’s body] in the bread occurs, or that there is a lasting conjunction [of the two] outside of the use of the Sacrament: nevertheless they grant that, by means of sacramental union, the bread is Christ’s body, that is, they think that, when the bread has been offered, Christ’s body at the same time is present and truly exhibited. For outside of use, when it is preserved in a box [the pyx], as is done by the papists, they think that Christ’s body is not present.
III. Next, they think that this institution of the sacrament has power in the church, and does not depend on the worthiness of the minister or of him who takes it. Wherefore, as Paul says, even the unworthy eat, they thus think that the Lord’s body and blood are truly offered even to the unworthy, and that the unworthy take, where Christ’s words and institution are maintained. But such people take to their judgment, as Paul says, because they abuse the Sacrament, since they use it without repentance and without faith. For it was designed for this purpose, in order that it might bear witness that Christ’s benefits are applied to those who repent and raise themselves up by faith in Christ, and that they are made Christ’s members, and are washed in Christ’s blood.
Since, however, only a few of us have come together, and there is need for each party to refer this matter to other leaders and superiors, it is not yet permitted to us to formalize agreement concerning the Concord, before we have referred it to others.
Since, however, all profess that they wish to think and teach according to the Confession and Apology of the princes who profess the Gospel in all its articles, we especially desire that the Concord be ratified and established. And we have hope that, if the rest from each party have so agreed, the Concord will be firm.
[The following] subscribed:
Dr. Wolfgang Capito, minister of the church at Strasbourg.
Mr. Martin Bucer, minister of the church at Strasbourg.
Lic. (?) Martin Frecht, minister in the Word of the church at Ulm, Licentiate.
Lic. (?) Jacob Otther, licentiate of theology, minister of the church at Esslingen.
Mr. Bonifacius Wolfhart, 4 minister in the Word of the church at Augsburg.
Wolfgang Musculus, minister in the Word of the church at Augsburg.
Mr. Gervasius Scholasticus, pastor of the church at Memmingen.
Mr. Johann Bernard, minister of the church at Frankfurt.
Martinus Germani, minister of the church at Furfeld.
Mr. Matthäus Alber, pastor of the church at Reutlingen.
Johannes Schradinus, deacon at Reutlingen.
Martin Luther, doctor at Wittenberg.
Justus Jonas, doctor.
Caspar Cruciger, doctor.
Johannes Bugenhagen, doctor at Pommern.
Philip Melanchthon.
Justus Menius of Eisenach.
Friedrich Myconius of Gotha.
Dr. Urbanus Rhegius, superintendent of the churches of the Duchy of Lüneburg.
Georg Spalatin, pastor of the church at Altenburg.
Dionysius Melander, minister of the church at Kassel.
And many others.
Lutherans of today don't teach transubstiantian? No they claim with in and under but that means that there are two presences: bread and Christ. Preposterous and still consubstantiation. Btw, is the word Trinity in the Bible? No but we believe it. Christ established One Church to be continued through his appointed ministers, the Apostles, who then passed that indelible character, the mark of the priesthood, by the imposition of hands. Seriously, you protestants stop at nothing to advance your novel teachings.
Wow. Words fail me on this one for so many reasons.
On the night before he was betrayed, he took bread and looking up into heaven he broke the bread and said to His disciples, "Take, eat for this IS (not means, not my body is in, with and under the bread) my Body given up for you. Do this in memory of me." Likewise He took the Chalice and said, "Take and drink for this IS (not means, not with, in and under the wine) my Blood..." It can't be any clearer than that. The Bread and Wine once consecrated cease to be bread and wine but the Body and Blood, whole and substantial, of Christ.
"I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?"
Still bread and wine there.
Um, you clearly don't understand. You fail to continue with this:Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world. (1 Cor 11:27-32)
St. Paul clearly knows that it is not bread and wine any longer but the Body and Blood of our Lord with the accidents of bread and wine remaining. You will find valid Eucharists in the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Sorry bud but still and only bread and wine in Lutheran ecclesial communities.
Yeah, still lots of talk about bread and wine in all of those passages.
"Is" = "Is", this is Lutheran teaching, this is catholic, this is what the Church has taught from the beginning; unless someone wants to tell Jesus, correct Him that's not what He meant to say...
Rome: He meant to say, "This is changed into My body, blood..." (Transubstantiation)
Reformed: He meant to say, "This is not really my body and blood, I have no idea why I said that." (Represents)
Doofus. Be consistent.
The Orthodox do not believe in transubstantiation and also view it as a scholastic innovation.
Therefore, they are also consuming merely bread and wine according to your logic.
Anonymous, no they don't but neither do Eastern Catholics. And it's not that they don't believe, they just don't define it as such. They take Christ's words literally; that is, once the words of consecration are spoken then the species cease to be bread and wine but the Body and Blood of Christ. So therefore, they are on the same page as Catholics and therefore I am consistent.
Also the Orthodox did not have to contend with the lunacy that the West, thanks to your "pope" Luther brought in with his heresies which then multiplied with Calvin and Zwingli and on to this day with 33,000 and counting denominations. So much for sola fide and sola scriptura.
And to other anonymous who stated:
"Is" = "Is", this is Lutheran teaching, this is catholic, this is what the Church has taught from the beginning; unless someone wants to tell Jesus, correct Him that's not what He meant to say...
So where did Luther come in with "in, with and under"? Come on now. That is consubstantiation which means that the bread and wine stay bread and wine and Jesus "hides" under their appearances. Ridiculoous. And this flies in the face of the entire discourse of John 6 where many of his disciples, after hearing this, "walked with him no longer." Why? Because they understood clearly what he meant and that was that they were to eat and drink his actual flesh and blood. So if after the consecration, the bread and wine do not change in totality to his body and blood, then the Echurarist is a farce. And that is a slap in the face to our Lord who assured us, at the Last Supper, that indeed, what he gave to the Apostles was his actual Flesh and Blood and that they were to continue do commemorate that until He comes again. And where does that happen? Not in the Lutheran ecclesial community but in the Church of Rome AND the Orthodox Churches. #walkaway from the Lutheran ecclesial community.
Anonymous?
Cliff,
Yes?
To all "anonymous" posters: anonymity is a license for liars, cowards and trolls. Many of these comments were quite good and appropriate, some not so. Nearly all were worthy of comment, rebut, or kudos. Identify yourself so that we may know who it is we are debating with! If you do not have an identity connected to a social media site, just sign your name.
Pastor Peters: it's your blog, of course, and it is one of the finer theological commentary sites on the web (IMHO), but could you ask comment posters to ID themselves?
Submitted respectfully,
Your brother,
Bill +
Doofus, much as with the latter Marian dogmas and papal infallibility, transubstantiation is an innovation inasmuchas it anathematizes earlier views of these subjects that were catholic. Also justification by faith.
Aristotelian categories are not required, as the Eucharist is a mystery.
Let's try this: can salvation be found in the Orthodox church?
When a poster goes by the name of "Anonymous" the credibility of his post then must relies on what is said and its substantiation.
When quotes are provided without context or reference, or when new or unusual definitions are given to specific words, such an anonymous post should be ignored. The anonymous poster bears the burden of proof.
Mr. Strickert,
That is true for anyone who doesn't use their name, you included.
And you as well since "David Gray" could just as well be a pseudonym.
Except it isn't. Man up and use your name.
So you say, but reread my earlier comment.
And spitting out an ad hominem doesn't improve your credibility.
Your comment remains pointless. Use your name like a man would.
My comment is valid. Your opinion is pointless.
You have provided no substantiation that "David Gray" is not a pseudonym, while at the same time whining, and tossing out ad hominems, about the use of pseudonyms.
I give my word as a gentleman that I am using my name.
Can you give your word that your name is "Carl Vehse"?
Given your posting behavior as "David Gray", your latest comment carries little credibility. Again, reread my earlier comment.
And as you conceded earlier, my earlier comment also applies to my posts.
Although I agree mostly with Mr. Gray that pseudonyms are not much better than anonymous postings, names that are obviously aliases at least tell you what you're dealing with. And I don't think it **necessarily** indicates cowardice; sometimes they can be very clever and fun. (Obviously not the case with Mr. Strickert's ill chosen nom de plume.) Internet "handles," along with avatars, are an annoying reality from which we will not escape. I use one on Twitter--Irish Lutheran--but I don't post there very much, mostly following people much more interesting than me. Furthermore, at least on comment sites like this one where social IDs might accompany posts, you may be able to private post the person to clarify, etc.
My beef is with sites such as this one where serious discussion is being engaged, or at least trying to. When someone makes a pertinent comment, agreeing or disagreeing, and gives no identification, then it weakens their integrity, as Mr. Strickert said. I especially want to know who it is that makes a particularly good or insightful point. On the other hand, I have no interest in who is hurling mindless criticism's and invectives, although trolling is the most annoying.
My meager 2¢. Forgive me for butting into your tete-a-tete. ;-)
Cordially,
Bill +
Folks, it is like this. Either we have no comments, we allow only people with Goggle accounts, or I have to moderate or approve comments before they appear. Those are the only options. I cannot simply disallow anonymous comments. So what is it going to be? Or could we all take a sigh and a breath and own up to what we say.
Here, I'll help you out.
Post #1. Lutheran
2. Catholic
3. Carl
4. Catholic
5. Lutheran, summarizing the Formula of Concord
6. The Lutheran that likes the caps lock.
7. Lutheran, quoting the Wittenberg Concord, 1536
8. Catholic, accusing Lutherans of consubstantiation. Lutherans reject the concept of consubstantiation because it replaces what they believe to be the biblical doctrine with a philosophical construct, denotes a mixing of substances (bread and wine with body and blood), and denotes a "gross, Capernaitic, carnal" presence of the body and blood of Christ.
"But in neither sense can that monstrous doctrine of Consubstantiation be attributed to our church, since Lutherans do not believe either in that local conjunction of two bodies, nor in any commingling of bread and of Christ's body, of wine and of his blood." - good old wikipedia
9. Sean
10. Catholic
11. Lutheran
12+ Back and forth until we get to the real reason everyone reads this blog, another priceless battle between David Gray and Carl Vehse.
Rev. Gleason: "sometimes they can be very clever and fun. (Obviously not the case with Mr. Strickert's ill chosen nom de plume.)"
Give that you stated you "have no interest in who is hurling mindless criticism's," do you have any particular mindful reasons or substantiation why you "obviously" assert the criticism that Carl Vehse is not a very clever or fun nom de plume?
Also, regarding the credibility of anonymous posters, you attempt, Rev. Gleason, to put words in my mouth. I did not state what you falsely claim I said. What I actually stated was:
"When a poster goes by the name of 'Anonymous' the credibility of his post then must relies on what is said and its substantiation.
"When quotes are provided without context or reference, or when new or unusual definitions are given to specific words, such an anonymous post should be ignored."
As one of the anonymous posters who attempted to defend the Lutheran position against some of the Papist caricatures, my reasons for prefering to remain anonymous are multiple.
1. Don't want Google cataloging/storing my opinions/beliefs (many of which are already considered untenable in our progressive society).
2. Don't want current/future secular employer to assume something about me based on my comments (or the comments of others in a post I comment on).
3. If I am in theological error (I hope not) I don't want it to reflect poorly on my current/former pastor(s), nor to hurt their reputations through my association to them. Basically pastors have enough to worry about without having parishoners who spout off online :)
So that's why I comment anonymously. I'm happy to stop if the host prefers it. Pastors Gleason and Peters, thanks for being faithful shepherds.
Anonymous on August 31, 2018 at 10:03 PM, some people may reject your decision and reasons to post anonymously. As you've seen here, don't be surprised if, rather than deal with such reasons, they simply hurl ad hominems against you.
Post a Comment