Log in Sign up Entire forum This topic This board. February 25, , AM. Main Menu. Communion Practice. Go Down Pages Karl Hess Guest Logged. August 28, , AM. In that case, most Lutherans shouldn't commune anywhere. Harvey Mozolak Much more pertinent is the question of whether there should be "open absolution.
Historically absolution has been "guarded" by the church more than other sacraments. I think part of the problem in modern LCMS is that we have little to no actual practice of absolution but we have picked up a residual, faint memory of the practice of absolution from distant forebearers and applied some of the ethos to the Eucharist. It is a disaster from which only God can save us. Answer: yes Quandry: Did the person do so worthly? Answer: None recieve worthly, but with contrite heart and reliance upon the words, "given and shed for you".
Is the pastor to say Gnesio Lutherans would not commune with Philippist "receptionists" although they weren't exactly receptionists because they considered them to have departed from Luther's teaching on the sacrament. I can't remember the exact practice the gnesio Lutherans found objectionable: whether it was that Philippists did not consume the reliquiae or what.
I know someone may argue that this was a controversy about whether the Philippists actually were holding a crypto-calvinist view. But the same way that the gnesio Lutherans questioned whether the philippist errors were actually a denial of the true presence of the body and blood, Lutherans today could question whether those who practice open communion are not practically denying the reality that the bread and wine are Christ's body and blood.
Where can I find out more about this? It sounds very interesting, indeed. I will specify though that a precedent confined to Gnesio Lutherans hardly strikes me as being potentially convincing unless it was continued beyond the Formula.
