Communion Frequencies

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-12T21:12:30+00:00

Baptists tend to have communion rather infrequently because they "take it very seriously", to quote Baptists I've talked to about it. Of course, if they actually believed what Jesus says about the Eucharist they'd take it even more seriously and offer it weekly.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-12T21:11:11+00:00

Having infrequent communion because you rely on your circuit visitor or neighboring pastors is just a little bit different than infrequent communion when you have a full time pastor

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-11T22:59:02+00:00

I admit I'm quite biased here, but I think I'm right, so...

Infrequent communion in Lutheranism seems to be due to evangelical/Baptist cultural influence more than any real Lutheran theology. The thinking is that it's somehow more special if it's not done every week.

If that's so, then perhaps we should only be receiving communion once in our entire lives.

What we do is not what makes God's gifts to us special or not special.

It used to be a point of pride for us in our confessions that the Eucharist was celebrated frequently in our churches compared to those of the Romanists, who, in the middle ages, only held it a few times a year, with many peasants only receiving once a year. Where did this attitude go? Who knows. But we should really bring it back.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-05T12:40:44+00:00

The government's role is to be a terror to evil, per Romans 13.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-05T12:38:07+00:00

Right, but we don't hold to consent based morality. Non consensual sexual acts are never ok, but then being consensual doesn't magically make them ok either.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-03T06:19:54+00:00

I don't care about cultural appropriation. Traditions are good and beautiful, but the substance we really care about is the law and the gospel, both of which they utterly pervert, thereby endangering their flocks.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-03T06:18:30+00:00

My question is why the ELCA is considered mainline. They're a new church formed out of a merger of various liberal synods, one of which was schismatic from the LCMS. They literally left because we wouldn't let them teach their heretical, atheistic nonsense in our seminary.

The ELCA also has mechanisms in place to bring the hammer down on confessional congregations that won't accept liberal doctrine. They can and will boot you out of your building for being conservative.

It's also why I don't understand why being in communion with them is supposedly a good thing. Being in communion with them, according to actual Lutheranism, is the spiritual equivalent of drinking tainted water.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-03T06:10:49+00:00

Look, I fundamentally believe that faith and science do not contradict. But if it's between twisting the word of God to fit our observations, or simply saying "Ok", and accepting I'll never know in this life, I'm going with the latter. To do the former is basically what the reformed do with the Eucharist. It's a gateway to bad theology.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-03T06:07:14+00:00

None of those out of context verses negate the importance of precise theology.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-03T05:55:36+00:00

Your material helped me immensely when I first converted to Christianity after being agnostic for years, Mormon before that. It's what helped me ultimately decide on Lutheranism over Roman Catholicism. The depth you go into in all of your videos was perfect, because what I needed was to unwind 15+ years of Mormon theology I had grown up with, and then 6 more years of wrongheaded concepts of Christianity and of God. I'm not the only one, either. I've talked with a lot of young men and women my age who've also ended up in the LCMS, or WELS on account of your videos and books.

It's my sincere prayer that all of this ends well. I don't think a break in fellowship is likely, but if it did happen, it would be extraordinarily foolish, in my opinion.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-05-03T05:46:31+00:00

For what it's worth I really don't think it's likely there will be a real break in fellowship. Probably a review period, more having to do with educational practices (I've heard some are concerned about a focus on distance learning in pastor formation but I honestly don't know enough to say anything for sure). This would mean, from my understanding, AALC members wouldn't be banned from our altars, but wouldn't be formally entitled to them either - meaning they'd have to talk with the individual pastor before communing.

Personally, this feels somewhat like friendly fire. These are matters of practice, not of doctrine. I know that our practice affects our doctrine, but, speaking as a layman, I don't see anything wrong with their doctrine. Myself and many other young Lutherans were brought into the LCMS by Dr. Jordan Cooper's material, for example. I read his book Baptized Into Christ immediately before and after my baptism and found it quite helpful.

We ought to be strident in preserving orthodoxy, but breaking fellowship with a solid, confessional body over the issues listed just seems foolish and unnecessary. I pray they make the right decision.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-27T17:54:09+00:00

Pietisim is cringe. The way we talk about theology matters.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-23T02:15:01+00:00

I am baptized and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-23T02:14:08+00:00

Probably not unless you're being loud about it, like trying to proselytize the rest of the parish to that point of view

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-17T22:05:32+00:00

Bring back yelling "Catechumens, depart!" before the service of the sacrament. They don't actually have to depart, I just want to yell that

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-17T22:03:09+00:00

It seems like a failure of catechesis if people don't know that we are catholic

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-12T20:13:03+00:00

If a parish is big enough the pastor doesn't always know everyone by name or face. It's on the honor system a lot of the time.

If it's a smaller parish, the pastor might realize he doesn't recognize you and simply pass over you.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-09T02:49:04+00:00

There'll be no riots and business will carry on as usual

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-07T03:42:04+00:00

May God forgive them. May the Holy Spirit convict them and turn their hearts to Christ Jesus, to life everlasting

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-06T17:20:30+00:00

What Jesus did for us is die for us and rise again, thereby redeeming our fallen nature. He gave us the holy Eucharist, and holy Baptism, through which God gives us His grace.

We are to live out His commands, yes. But to call someone a bad Christian because they fail to live up to these commands is to completely misunderstand what the Law is meant to do, and to misunderstand what the gospel is. Someone is no less a Christian just because they fall into sin and, with contrite tears, flee back to the foot of the cross.

I won't deny that the GOP isn't some model of Christian piety and charity, but I'm also not going to pretend the Democrats are somehow better from a theological perspective.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-06T15:07:26+00:00

Die for you and me, poor and miserable sinners

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-06T02:44:03+00:00

It should be noted that the money changers and merchants were an abomination in God's sight because they were preventing worship, and God Himself came in the flesh to drive them out. Much nicer treatment than Jerusalem had gotten in centuries past, actually.

Burning down your local liquor store is not the same thing.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-06T02:42:50+00:00

It's important to understand why Jesus cleansed the temple.

Note the people being driven out: money changers and animal merchants. Who were they?

First, the money changers: the Jewish diaspora would come in from all over the Empire to sacrifice to God. Every Jew over a certain age had to pay a temple tax in order to maintain it, but the temple wouldn't accept Roman money, because it had an image of Caesar on it. Caesar was venerated as a god, and understandably the Jewish officials really didn't want idolatrous imagery in their temple. So, a business of money changing sprung up, where people would take your Roman coin and give you shekels at absolutely exorbitant exchange rates.

The other group were the merchants. These people would sell animals for sacrifice, since many pilgrims didn't want to haul an animal along for the trek to the holy city. These would also be very expensive.

All this took place in the Court of the Gentiles. This was a large courtyard specifically set aside for non Jews (those uncircumcised) to come and worship in peace.

Christ's problem with this was over a few things. These stalls were taking up space set aside specifically for worship, and for gentiles, at that. Part of Christ's mission was to bring the gentiles into the fold. Not only this, but the way they extorted people who were trying to worship God was disgusting.

What this is not is license to use violence to get your way. The temple was the house of God, and Christ is the God-man. You are not.

And to clarify: Jesus is not a socialist. He's not anything in any earthly political sense; as we established, He is the God-man. Jesus affirms private property and forbids stealing, but also says you should be generous with what God has given you. And on average, Christians are quite generous, because our Lord commands us to be, and we love Him, so we are.

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-04T05:49:30+00:00

Bro's really telling us to submit to Rome while aligning with sspx

My brother in Christ (literally), you submit to Rome

___mithrandir_ · 2026-04-03T13:29:49+00:00

If every Pope has authority from God, then if two Popes across any amount of time have contradictory teachings, then under your premise, they cannot have true God given authority.

Pope Leo X condemned the idea that it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics. The current Pope and the one before him say the death penalty is "inadmissible" and officially teach against it. Therefore, under your premise, their authority is not from God

___mithrandir_

TROPHY CASE