tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048575444859487507.post280463759905028868..comments2023-09-12T10:10:57.773-04:00Comments on thinking-out-loud: Floor Committee 3: Theology and Church RelationsRev. Rick Stuckwischhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048575444859487507.post-10655222431327413712007-08-10T16:30:00.000-04:002007-08-10T16:30:00.000-04:00Sorry to be slow in replying to your last comment ...Sorry to be slow in replying to your last comment and question, Jersey Boy. Your question about the confessional significance of the Holy Communion is a good one, and I haven't been ignoring it. In fact, I've been taking my time to think about it carefully, and it occurs to me that I should probably formulate an entire blog post on that very point. Due to a number of demands upon my time at the present, I doubt that I'll get to it right away, but I'll try to keep it in mind for the future.<BR/><BR/>For the time being, my short answer would be that this is at the heart of St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, the relationship of participation in the Holy Communion to the fellowship of the Church as one Body in Christ. Negatively speaking, his admonition against a participation in the sacrifices offered to demons also seems apropos in principle. I don't say that as an accusation of other Christians as somehow demonic, but I refer only to the relationship of confession and practice.<BR/><BR/>It also occurs to me that the issues involved in table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, such as in Galatians 2 and Acts 6, are examples of divisions in the Holy Communion on the basis of adiaphora. Those sorts of divisions - due to differences in circumcision, in "fasting" or other man-made ceremonies, or for reasons of nationality, social status or sex - are not only inappropriate, but offensive and contrary to the faith.<BR/><BR/>From the standpoint of the early church, I would offer that receiving the Holy Communion at a particular altar is to be in unity and fellowship with the bishop in that place (the pastor loci). But such fellowship with the bishop is not simply in relation to an abstract or static office. It is, rather, to be in harmony with the teaching and practice of the man who functions in that office. I believe that is the sort of understanding one finds at work in the letters of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp of Smyrna. I need to go back and review Elert's book (translated by Nagel) on Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries.<BR/><BR/>I should also say that I tend to have a very eucharistic ecclesiology (though I realize that terminology may carry baggage that I don't necessary endorse). It seems to me that a common participation in the holy things of Christ both presupposes and substantiates the unity of the faith. The common confession of the Church precedes fellowship at the common table. In turn, to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ it to be gathered together into the one body of Christ, His Church. As I recall, the difference between this unity and fellowship "before" and "after" has been designated by our Lutheran dogmaticians as "concord" and "unitas," respectively. But I'm working from memory on that distinction.<BR/><BR/>Guess that's all I can say for now. I do appreciate your good questions and helpful remarks.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048575444859487507.post-91723090415656110532007-08-06T19:59:00.000-04:002007-08-06T19:59:00.000-04:00sRick, you might not think of the issue in terms o...sRick, you might not think of the issue in terms of who should be excluded, but I guarantee you there are those who do. I recall there were some LCMS churches who issued statements saying they would refuse to commune President Kieschnick if he were to show up at their churches. I'm not sure any discipline was taken against those churches.<BR/><BR/>You made the following statement: "Receiving the Holy Communion at a particular altar is to share in the confession and fellowship of that congregation." Where in Scripture or the confessions do you find that point of view. Do you recall what Luther said regarding who was worthy to receive the sacrament?jerseyboy7https://www.blogger.com/profile/15945231265068394210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048575444859487507.post-15208558891133754952007-08-05T20:43:00.000-04:002007-08-05T20:43:00.000-04:00I generally don't think of this question of who sh...I generally don't think of this question of who should be excluded, although, of course, practicing closed communion does mean (as it did in the early church, as well) that there are those who are excluded from the Holy Communion.<BR/><BR/>My approach to this is based, chiefly, on the fact that Jesus gives His body and blood to His disciples. Who are His disciples? Those who are baptized in accordance with His institution and catechized in all that He has commanded. Catechsis is not a "terminal" process, but an ongoing, daily and lifelong thing. So, I regard Holy Baptism and ongoing catechesis to be the primary criteria for determining who is to be given the Holy Communion.<BR/><BR/>Receiving the Holy Communion at a particular altar is to share in the confession and fellowship of that congregation. This is where the aspect of church fellowship is important, rather than simply the personal faith and confession of the individual. We are too much inclined to think in terms of autonomous individuals, instead of members of a community (Church).<BR/><BR/>Anyway, what I ask a person who inquires about receiving the Holy Communion is this: (1.) Have you been baptized (in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit)? (2.) Have you been catechized in the Lutheran faith (the six chief parts of the Small Catechism)? (3.) Are you a communicant member of an LCMS congregation? (4.) Would your pastor have any objections or concerns about your communing here?<BR/><BR/>These are basic questions, which do no preclude pastoral discretion in particular situations.<BR/><BR/>I should also say that I don't use "confirmation" as a criteria for admittance to the Sacrament. Worthy reception is by faith in the Word of Christ, but I can't read faith in the heart, so I operate on the basis of outward criteria: Baptism, catechesis, and a public confession of the faith (including church membership).<BR/><BR/>I hope this is a helpful response to your questions.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048575444859487507.post-38847086460712223592007-08-05T20:41:00.000-04:002007-08-05T20:41:00.000-04:00Rick, regarding my question above I am more intere...Rick, regarding my question above I am more interested in how you come to your answer than the actual answer itself.jerseyboy7https://www.blogger.com/profile/15945231265068394210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9048575444859487507.post-15032278737068572462007-08-05T19:03:00.000-04:002007-08-05T19:03:00.000-04:00Regarding 3-09, who in your opinion should be excl...Regarding 3-09, who in your opinion should be excluded from taking communion at an LCMS church?jerseyboy7https://www.blogger.com/profile/15945231265068394210noreply@blogger.com