A vicar as celebrant for the Lord's Supper

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marcy on August 8, 2008 at 6:49am

Isn't a vicar a layman? A layman who is studying for the holy ministry? I don't see vicars a "mini" ministers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pastor Everette E. Greene (Trail Guide - OH) on August 9, 2008 at 5:09am

Well, a vicar is in a different category than a layman. While he is not a mini minister, he is authorized to do certain functions of the pastoral office under the supervision of his Bishop such as reading the lessons and leading in the liturgy, and preaching.

In the old days, Seminarians actually had the title of "Rev. Seminarian".

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Seth on August 9, 2008 at 5:50am

neither.
1. the sacraments have no efficacy OUTSIDE of the liturgy of the sacrament. this is not ex opere operato.
2, no, the vicar isn't "licensed" to do this. that is why he has a bishop. the administration of the Lord's Supper is specifically restricted to the Office of the Public Ministry, i.e., only an "called and ordained servant of the Word" may officiate at the Lord's Supper.
yes. and the vicar should have refused. because he should have known better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pastor Everette E. Greene (Trail Guide - OH) on August 9, 2008 at 6:22am

The Vicar is delegated to perform certain functions of the pastoral office under the authority of his Bishop. Celebrating the sacrament is not one of them.

But David, I remember Professor Markquart telling us about a congregation in Siberia who went without Communion for 40 years because there was no ordained man available in the area. He said in that case, the congregation should have called one of the men out of the congregation to be the one who would give them the sacrament.

But there isn't such a case today. A congregation can always bring in a guest celebrant to give them The Lord's Supper. It might not be as often as they would like it to be but there is no such thing as emergency communion.

In the New Testament, there was a set practice of a man studying and then being " certified" or ordained into the office of pastor by Paul or some other apostle. Of course you can read 1 Timothy to get the specific qualifications for the office. Certainly if Paul set qualifications, the man had to meet those qualifications and then be authorized to carry out the functions of the Office of the Public Ministry.

For a long time now Districts have been licensing men to carry out Word and Sacrament ministry. Unfortunately, this is a sorry way to put warm bodies into pulpits but in a lot of cases it has been harmful to congregations because the man did not have proper training to carry out the functions of the pastoral office. Those dear Christians deserve a qualified man to serve them.

As someone stated earlier, if a man has aspirations for the pastoral office, he should also desire to be as qualified as he can, given the seriousness of caring for the very souls of those placed into his care. I left job, home and uprooted my family and took on more debt because I felt the Lord was leading me toward the Seminary. The Lord will provide for and equip the man He calls into the ministry.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Sikora on August 9, 2008 at 7:09am

Dear brother, you asked the question, please allow me to address several of your inquiries.

"but I am aware of no scripture in which this function is restricted to "ordained" men."

You are correct when you say that "ordination" is not mentioned in the New Testament. The word "ordination" is not mentioned, however the practice clearly is. We must remember that Christianity did not arise from a vacuum. It is the fulfillment of Judaism. And all Old Testament priests (Levitical - because all Israel was a nation of priests) were ordained (Exodus 29:9ff). This was done through, sacrifice, the laying on of hands, as well as the sprinkling of blood upon the lobes of the right ear, the thumbs, and the big toes.

The apostles themselves were ordained, and the church has always confessed this, when Christ appeared in the upper room Easter evening breathing upon them the Holy Spirit and giving them authority to forgive sins.

Also, St. Paul refers to the rite of ordination when he speaks to Timothy about the "laying on of hands" (2 Timothy 1:6 ff.)

Our own Lutheran Confessions in the Apology (The number and use of the Sacraments) refer to the "laying on of hands" as a sacrament so long as its connected to the promises of God and rightly understood (not in the roman way.)

And Walther in his "Church and Ministry" (Kircke und Ampt - literally church and office) quotes Luther as saying ordination is divinely instituted.

As the whole nation of Israel were priests unto God, yet not all Israel publicly ministered before the Lord in the tabernacle/temple, so also in the New Testament all Christians are priests and possess the keys, but not all Christians have been ordained to exercise the keys publicly.

Because Christ did indeed, and the Church always has, ordained men (never women) to publicly exercise the office of the keys, that means they and they alone have been set aside by God through the Church to bring God's grace and forgiveness to His people publicly. This is a gift to Christ's people that they may be certain of the forgiveness of their sins. The Pastor, not a laymen nor a vicar (who is still a layman), stands in the stead of Christ Himself. In the true sense of the word, all pastors are "vicars" of Christ. For they stand vicariously in His place with His Word and Authority. That doesn't mean they are Christ, nor that they in any way earn for the people salvation, or that they possess some indelible character. It simply means "he who hears you hears Me."

It is for this reason that the church has always understood that only - Luther and Walther included - only an ordained man (Pastor) may consecrate and celebrate the Lord's Supper.

"Doesn't the congregation have the right to choose their own pastors?(Power and Primacy of the Pope, Power and Jurisdiction of Bishops, 67)"

Correct, the congregation does have the right to choose its own pastor, but let us not confuse a "licensed" vicar with that of pastor. A vicar is still a layman studying for the Office of the Holy Ministry.

"Isn't the Vicar rightly called as long as he has been placed(called) with the approval of the congregation, and in accordance with the accepted practices of the church?"

Congregations cannot call a vicar. That is the accepted practice, and has always been the practice, of our churches. Vicars have no "call" other than the inward feeling that they should attend seminary and strive for the pastorate which is later confirmed through reception of the Divine Call into the Office of the Holy Ministry. Thus Augustana XIV.

"As churches who have voluntarily joined with the LCMS, is not it an accepted practice to license certain "laymen" to perform Word and Sacrament functions?"

This practice is in wide use in our Synod, but it is far from universal acceptance. Only after the 1989 Wichita convention were laymen "licensed" to celebrate the sacrament in what they called extreme situations. This decree has been referred to as the Wichita amendment to the Augsburg Confession. Thus this is a new practice, it is an innovation in the church and many, myself included, would like to see it corrected.

Some good reading on this subject would be Walther's Church and Ministry. There's also and article by Prof. Wienrich regarding a layman celebrating the Lord's Supper (CTQ).

And finally, I hope I'm not being too wordy here, but these things really need to be wrestled with. Here are a few select quotes from Luther and Walther.

Luther: “Beware! By no means let yourselves be persuaded that every house-leader may give the Sacrament in his house. For I may teach at home, but I am not thereby a public preacher unless I am publicly called. Thus St. Paul also speaks of the Sacrament, 1 Corinthians 11:21-22: We should come together, and not each one make his own Supper. Therefore it is not right to say, ‘The Sacrament is made through the Word, therefore I may make it at home.’ For it is not God's order and command; but rather He wants the Sacrament to be distributed by the public ministry (German: Ampt). For the Sacrament was instituted as a public confession.” (Letter to Lorenz Kastner, 1536, WA Br. 7:366)

C. F. W. Walther: “Although almost all orthodox Lutheran theologians declare that no layman should administer Holy Communion, and we heartily agree with them, one must not think that a common Christian is not to administer Holy Communion because he could not bring it about, that this necessarily calls for an ordained pastor! (Here, Walther seems to be writing against the Romanist view of the ministry where the ability to consecrate the elements is limited to the indelible character bestowed upon the priest in the "sacrament" of ordination.) By no means! The reason is that in the case of the Lord’s Supper no genuine case of necessity can arise. For the Lord’s Supper is the Sacrament of confirmation or strengthening. Baptism, however, is the sacrament of initiation or consecration, and the proclamation of the Gospel together with Absolution is the means by which faith is engendered. This alone is the reason why the orthodox teachers of our church were opposed to a layman ever adminstering Holy Communion.” (C. F. W. Walther, The Congregation’s Right to Choose Its Own Pastor [St. Louis: Concordia Seminary Publications, 1997], p. 123, emphasis added)

Walther also says: “ . . . so also the public ministry, as instituted by God, is also a ‘noble work’ (1 Timothy 3:1); however, anyone who performs it without having been regularly called to it is not serving God by his act, but is rejecting God and heaping wrath upon himself. He is a rebel against God’s ordinance. He is in this not acting in accord with the right of his spiritual priesthood, but is misusing it. Let him say ever so often ‘that the Spirit is driving him to do it.’ The spirit is indeed driving him, but it is not the Holy Spirit, but his own spirit, for the Holy Spirit is a spirit of self-control (2 Timothy 1:7), and of the truth; He does not contradict Himself, so that He would institute the holy ministry and then would drive a person to disturb and abolish it.” (Ibid., p. 114, emphasis added)

Offered in Christian Charity
Peace in Christ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Sikora on August 9, 2008 at 7:21am

I too was placed in a similar situation while on vicarage in Connecticut. I was to serve in two congregations, one the established church, the other a mission outpost. The previous vicar was licensed to consecrate the Supper. I was aware of the situation before my arrival and spoke openly about my concerns with the Vicarage director in St. Louis. He flat out told me I had to do it. I gently told him I could not go against my conscience. We left it at that for the time being. Two weeks after my arrival at the church, my bishop took a call and left for Wisconsin. The CC became my bishop. The established church asked about licensing me to "do" the Lord's Supper at the mission congregation. Thankfully they asked and did not demand. Also, the respected my reasons for not serving in this way. I simply, gently, explained that I was very uncomfortable with the idea, that I was studying the practice theologically, and I asked them not to ask me to compromise my conscience, which the scriptures say would be sinful. Surprisingly they respected my request.

The first two options really aren't options because they are outside of the scriptural and confessional parameters we as a synod have agreed to uphold.

My suggestion would be to discuss this matter of conscience with your home pastor, your bishop, your c.c. and both District Presidents. Simply and gently explaining your concerns may get you further than you realize. Also, don't be afraid to adhere to your conscience. The Lord will preserve you.

Peace in Christ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Steele II on August 9, 2008 at 7:54pm

Yep, yep. Although it would probably take a while to get rid of vicarage, it would be good. Until then, maybe it could be modified or something...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marv N on August 10, 2008 at 12:19am

The vicars are being called to be public ministers in these situations. They are performing all the functions of the office of public ministry, on what basis then do the Bishops deny them ordination?

It's a bit complicated because that old corporation, the LCMS gets in the way. That's because the vicars aren't on the roles, and the congregations have agreed not to call anyone not on the roles. And the LCMS traditionally hasn't made calls a thing of a limited time duration.

But in any case, that's what's really happening. The congregations, with the approval of the synod which any contract can be modified with the approval of all parties, are calling these men to the office of public ministry for a limited time. And I think it would actually be less confusing to people to see them ordained. After all the LCMS denies that ordination is a lifetime office. So the very fact that ministers are ordained in their first cogregation and installed in subsequent congregations conflicts with LCMS doctrine. So just go to ordination for each call.

The Vicar program is quite useful potentially, but a lot of vicarages don't seem to actually be the year of close supervision and learning that they should be.

Do congregations go through many years of having one vicar after another as their pastor? Or do they usually get a permanent pastor after one or two? It would seem to me a possible abuse could develop where a congregation wanted to be a permanent vicarage in order to simply pay less.

Anyway, ordaining in recognition of the call would be my recommendation in order that the faith of the people would be strengthened, because obviously a lot have doubts now that they shouldn't have.

Marv

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stan Palmer on August 10, 2008 at 5:50pm

I certainly feel bad for vicars in situations like this, and I'm not even a pastor.

However, I do have one question / comment regarding baptisms:

Since laypersons are permitted to perform baptisms in "emergency situations" (at least from what I understand), I don't quite understand why a a vicar would be required to take a vow not to. Don't misunderstand, I absolutely agree that a called, ordained pastor is the one who should be doing it. Not saying the situations described qualify as an "emergency" (I imagine that term alone is subject to a lot of subjective interpretation).

Just wondering...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dennis Peskey on August 10, 2008 at 6:10pm

David,
I apologize for the tardiness of this response. The issue you seek is CTQ Vol 68 No 3/4 July/October 2004. The essay is titled "Should a Layman Discharge the Duties of the Holy Ministry? by William C Weinrich. It has also been published in Mysteria Dei: Essays in Honor of Kurt Marquart which is available from CTS Press. Please realize I do not intend to speak for Pr. Sikora; I shall confirm with him this is the article he wrote concerning.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Humphrey on August 10, 2008 at 8:50pm

My thanks to everyone who offered advice and suggestions-- they are greatly appreciated. To give a bit more background, I came out here with the understanding of the congregation that I would not be the celebrant; retired pastors in the area would serve on communion Sundays (another issue in itself). However, after arriving here, some of the pastors whom my home congregation pastor had recommended as being available to serve in that capacity have moved/are moving out of the area, others now have vacancy calls, etc. Therefore the solution previously determined as acceptable seems to be falling apart. My supervising pastor is not sympathetic to the situation for, as he put it, "I don't see why you are getting so hung up on such a little point" in reference to AC V and XIV. He has not offered assistance in the matter-- I am on my own in terms of arranging for pastors to come in. Additionally, he is not interested in doing some sort of pulpit exchange for purposes of communion (since he sees no problem with the vicar serving as celebrant, this is not unexpected) and he has counselled the congregation to not reduce the frequency of communion to make finding pastors easier and that I should be responsible for the honorariums to the visiting pastors, since "they shouldn't have to pay for my conscience." Perhaps this will be a short vicarage. I just try to keep in mind that all things are in the Lord's hands. Your prayers would be very much appreciated in this situation. Thanks again to all--

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rev. Matthew Gunia on August 11, 2008 at 5:21am

My understanding is that we were required to take that vow to protect the pastors we would be working under. It sent a clear message that we're not ordained yet (so we shouldn't be pretending to be pastors yet), and we're not in charge at our field work/vicarage congregations. If we promise not to perform acts given specifically to the pastoral office, we will not yet think of ourselves as pastors.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page