LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 374

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

374 THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

ris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans,
1988), 537.

42. DEUP proposes that “Scripture imposes no denominational
requirement on baptized Christians who desire to receive the body
and blood of Christ offered in the Lord’s Supper.” The use of
anachronistic language (“denominational requirement”) obscures
the very real concern that the New Testament writers, including
Paul, evidence for sound doctrine.

43. DEUP avoids the question of Paul's “toleration” of false
doctrine by considering only what constitutes “worthy reception,”
and not at all pondering the apostle’s insistence that the Corinthians
conform their thinking and living to his apostolic teaching.

44, The Confessions’ usual term for “Reformed” is “Sacramen-
tarian.” This expression groups together those who reject the sacra-
mental union of Christ’s body and blood in and under the bread
and wine of the Eucharist. This sacramental union confessed by the
Lutherans means that all who eat the bread and drink the wine of
the Supper, even unbelievers and heretics, cat and drink with their
mouths the very body and blood of Christ Jesus.

45. Again, DEUP fails to consider this aspect of confessional
teaching at all, stating that “. . .only those should excuse themselves
from the Sacrament who desire no grace and absolution and have
no intention to amend their lives... .”

46. Here we can note how different the Reformation context
was from the one Paul faced in Corinth. There is no evidence in
1 Corinthians || that the Christians there were explicitly denying
the doctrine of the real presence. To the contrary, Paul's direct and
unapologetic use of the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper
(1 1:23-26) assumes that the Corinthians will both recognize and
accept it. At the time of the Reformation, however, the warring par-
ties disagreed precisely over the doctrine of the Sacrament itself.

47. DEUP leaves the role of pastoral oversight unexpressed.
stating only that certain persons should “exclude themselves.”

48. This point has not always been clear in our own circles, and
one can imagine how those outside the Synod might have misun-
derstood our position. An example of such misunderstanding oc-
curs in the Pentecost 1996 issue of “Celebrate!”, a publication of
The Committee for A Declaration of Eucharistic Understanding
and Practice. \n a two-page article titled “Eucharistic Understand-
ing and Practice: A Biblical and Confessional Study” Question #5
asks, “Who. then, is an unworthy guest at the celebration?” The an-
swer given, in part. is: “We reject and condemn: The practice of
admitting other criteria of exclusion drawn from tradition, historical
practices, synodical resolutions, dogmatic statements, etc.” But the
practice of taking into account “other criteria” does not label as
“unworthy guests” those who may be asked to refrain from com-
muning.

49. The article mentions the Anabaptists, the Schwenkfelders,
the New Arians and the New Anti-Trinitarians. See Tappert,
633-36.

50. Addressing the issue of “The Presence of Christ” in the
Lord’s Supper, A Formula of Agreement states: “The members of
the theological conversations acknowledged that it has not been
possible to reconcile the confessional formulations from the six-
teenth century with a ’common language. . .which could do justice
to all the insights, convictions, and concerns of our ancestors in the
faith’ (A Common Calling, p. 49). However, the theological con-
versations recognized these enduring differences as acceptable di-
versities with regard to the Lord’s Supper. Continuing in the tradi-
tion of the third dialogue, they respected the different perspectives
and convictions from which their ancestors professed their faith,
affirming that those differences are not church-dividing, but are
complementary.” For the official text of A Formula of Agreement,
sce www.elca.org/ea/formula.html.

51. See the “Antitheses: The Contrary and Condemned Doc-
trine of the Sacramentarians” of FC Ep, VII (Tappert, 484-86, par.
21-42).

2001 Convention Workbook

52. One can refer to two recent CTCR resources that assess the
ELCA’s actions over against the Reformed, and regarding the Joint
Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: The Formula of
Agreement in Confessional Perspective (1999) and The Joint Dec-
laration on the Doctrine of Justification in Confessional Perspec-
tive (1999),

53. The expression “in a state of confession” (Latin, iv stati
confessionis) “is quite generally employed in the current usage of
our church to declare that an individual or congregation is in a state
of protest because it holds that a particular teaching, practice, or
action of the church against which the protest ts lodged is contrary
to the Word of God or endangers the Gospel. Used in this sense,
the declaration that one is in statu confessionis is not tantamount
to the breaking of fellowship. If, however, the circumstances which
called forth the protest are not corrected in due time, the implica-
tion is that the protest will lead to the severance of fellowship rela-
tions.” CTCR Opinion on “Jn Statu Confessionis: A Theo-
logico—Historical Definition” (April 1970), 1971 Convention
Workbook, 39.

54. 1998 Resolution 3-05 “To Reaffirm Our Practice of Admis-
sion to the Lord’s Supper” (see Preamble), Convention Proceed-
ings, 115. See 1986 Resolution 3-08 “To Maintain Practice of
Close Communion,” Convention Proceedings, 143, and 1995 Res-
olution 3-08 “To Reaffirm Practice of Close[d] Communion,” Con-
vention Proceedings, 121-22. In this latter resolution the Synod
recommended to its member congregations for guidance the fol-
lowing Communion Card statement prepared by the CTCR:

The Lord’s Supper is celebrated al this congregalion in the contession
and glad confidence thal, as He says, our Lord gives into our mouths
not only bread and wine but His very body and blood to eat and to drink
for the forgiveness of sins and to strengthen our union with Him and
with one another. Our Lord inviles 10 His lable those who trusi in His
words, repent of all sin, and sel aside any refusal to torgive and love as
He forgives and loves us, thal they may show forth His death until He
comes.

Because those who eat and drink our Lord's body and blood unworthily
do so to their great harm and because Holy Communion is a contession
of the faith which is contessed at this aliar, any who are not yel in-
structed, in doubl, or who hold a confession differing from that of this
congregalion and The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, and yel de-
sire lo receive the Sacrament, are asked firsl 1o speak with the Pastor or
an usher. For further study, see Matt. 5:23ff; 10:32ff; 18:15-35,
26:26-29; | Cor. 11:17-34.

55. See Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper, A Report
of the Commission on Theology and Church Relations, 1983,
19-23.

56. See synodical resolutions cited in note 54.

57. Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1398.

58. Published in worship booklets used in Roman Catholic
parishes is the following paragraph from “Guidelines for Receiving
Communion” issued by the National Conference of Catholic Bish-
ops in Guidelines for the Publication of Missalettes (Washington,
D.C., 1986): “For Other Christians. We welcome to this celebra-
tion of the Eucharist those Christians who are not fully united with
us. It is a consequence of the sad divisions in Christianity that we
cannot extend to them a general invitation to receive Communion.
Catholics believe that the Eucharist is an action of the celebrating
community signifying a oneness in faith, life, and worship of the
community. Reception of the Eucharist by Christians not fully
united with us would imply a oneness which does not yet exist, and
for which we must all pray.”

59. F. L. Cross, ed., and E. A. Livingstone, ed. (Third Edition),
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (New York: Ox-
ford University Press, 1998), 932.