“And with your spirit”

The Roman Catholic Church has changed the liturgical response to the greeting, “The Lord be with you” back to “And with your spirit.” This is a change from the more modern liturgies that had switched to the more colloquial “And also with you.”

The more modern Lutheran liturgies of the 1980s made the same change, though users of the older services–as well as Divine Service 3 of the new Lutheran Service Book–continued to say “And with your spirit.”

My question is, What exactly does that mean?

The new Catholic explanations I’ve read say that the “spirit” refers to the Holy Spirit. The greeting thus recognizes the priest as bringing the Holy Spirit with him.

But that doesn’t seem to make linguistic sense. The Lord be with the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit IS the Lord.

I think what’s happening is that the congregation is praying for the pastor–specifically, praying for his spirit, for his soul–as he, mortal that he is, becomes an instrument through whom God will act by means of His Word and sacraments.

Is that right? Or are there other meanings?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Tom Hering

    Fr. Austin J. Milner OP, via “Fr. Z’s Blog”

    “And with your spirit” is the literal translation of et cum spiritu tuo, which itself is a literal translation from the Greek. This phrase, whether in Greek or in Latin, was quite strange to the ancient world. It appears only in Christian writings. It already forms part of greetings at the end of some of the Pauline Epistles: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit brethren. Amen” (Gal 6:18; cf Phil 4:23; Philemon 25); “The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you” (2 Tim 4:22).

  • Tom Hering

    Fr. Austin J. Milner OP, via “Fr. Z’s Blog”

    “And with your spirit” is the literal translation of et cum spiritu tuo, which itself is a literal translation from the Greek. This phrase, whether in Greek or in Latin, was quite strange to the ancient world. It appears only in Christian writings. It already forms part of greetings at the end of some of the Pauline Epistles: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit brethren. Amen” (Gal 6:18; cf Phil 4:23; Philemon 25); “The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you” (2 Tim 4:22).

  • Tom Hering

    Apparently, those who favor “and also with you” feel that “and with your spirit” puts too much focus on the priesthood of the priest/pastor, and too little on the priesthood of the congregation. But isn’t that where the focus should be? Not on the person of the priest/pastor, but on what the priest/pastor is doing – administering the Gospel, God’s free forgiveness of sins, through Word and Sacrament?

    I think a return to “and with your spirit” is a correction aimed at the wrong-headed democratization of the Divine Service.

  • Tom Hering

    Apparently, those who favor “and also with you” feel that “and with your spirit” puts too much focus on the priesthood of the priest/pastor, and too little on the priesthood of the congregation. But isn’t that where the focus should be? Not on the person of the priest/pastor, but on what the priest/pastor is doing – administering the Gospel, God’s free forgiveness of sins, through Word and Sacrament?

    I think a return to “and with your spirit” is a correction aimed at the wrong-headed democratization of the Divine Service.

  • Cincinnatus

    “I think what’s happening is that the congregation is praying for the pastor–specifically, praying for his spirit, for his soul–as he, mortal that he is, becomes an instrument through whom God will act by means of His Word and sacraments.”

    This is a plausible interpretation, I think. At root, the reason for Catholicism’s change seems simply to be translational accuracy, as Tom notes above. For the record, Anglican Rite I has kept the “…and with thy spirit” for all these years.

  • Cincinnatus

    “I think what’s happening is that the congregation is praying for the pastor–specifically, praying for his spirit, for his soul–as he, mortal that he is, becomes an instrument through whom God will act by means of His Word and sacraments.”

    This is a plausible interpretation, I think. At root, the reason for Catholicism’s change seems simply to be translational accuracy, as Tom notes above. For the record, Anglican Rite I has kept the “…and with thy spirit” for all these years.

  • Booklover

    I distinctly remember singing “And with thy spi-ir-it” during the liturgy in my LCMS childhood.

  • Booklover

    I distinctly remember singing “And with thy spi-ir-it” during the liturgy in my LCMS childhood.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “und mit deinem Geist”

    was what we said yesterday in the annual German Christmas service.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “und mit deinem Geist”

    was what we said yesterday in the annual German Christmas service.

  • Dennis Voss

    Dr Veith, I believe you are correct.
    I read some place that the pastor says, “The Lord be with you,” to the congregation, they then reply “and with your (or thy) spirit,” back to the pastor. As you say, the pastor is mortal and a sinner. He is preparing to read the assigned lectionary texts, and to preach. So they are “invoking” the Spirit of God on the spirit of the pastor, that he may have the strength to carry out his office faithfully and proclaim God’s word in truth and purity. Many pastors bow slightly, when the congregation responds as they humbly receive the congregation’s prayer.

  • Dennis Voss

    Dr Veith, I believe you are correct.
    I read some place that the pastor says, “The Lord be with you,” to the congregation, they then reply “and with your (or thy) spirit,” back to the pastor. As you say, the pastor is mortal and a sinner. He is preparing to read the assigned lectionary texts, and to preach. So they are “invoking” the Spirit of God on the spirit of the pastor, that he may have the strength to carry out his office faithfully and proclaim God’s word in truth and purity. Many pastors bow slightly, when the congregation responds as they humbly receive the congregation’s prayer.

  • Dan Kempin

    Tom, #2,

    “I think a return to “and with your spirit” is a correction aimed at the wrong-headed democratization of the Divine Service.”

    Huh? I hope that you are just trying to goad a response, or better still speaking with tongue in cheek. Because I’m not following.

    But I’m with you. I think it would be good to keep the ancient wording of “and with thy spirit.” We should also drop this novel “Divine Service” term, and repristinate back to “The Order of the Holy Communion.” That’s what it used to be before LBW.

    (OK, so maybe now I’m the one just goading for a response.)

  • Dan Kempin

    Tom, #2,

    “I think a return to “and with your spirit” is a correction aimed at the wrong-headed democratization of the Divine Service.”

    Huh? I hope that you are just trying to goad a response, or better still speaking with tongue in cheek. Because I’m not following.

    But I’m with you. I think it would be good to keep the ancient wording of “and with thy spirit.” We should also drop this novel “Divine Service” term, and repristinate back to “The Order of the Holy Communion.” That’s what it used to be before LBW.

    (OK, so maybe now I’m the one just goading for a response.)

  • Dan Kempin

    Dennis, #6,

    No, the phrase is not an invocation of the Holy Spirit. If so, it would be capitalized. It is a form of speech that was rendered from the Latin, echoing the literal text of the greek scripture, as Tom already cited in post #1. It means, well, “and also with you.” But it is way cooler, as well as conveying a sense of formality, dignity and honor, to use the ancient manner of speech.

    In my opinion.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dennis, #6,

    No, the phrase is not an invocation of the Holy Spirit. If so, it would be capitalized. It is a form of speech that was rendered from the Latin, echoing the literal text of the greek scripture, as Tom already cited in post #1. It means, well, “and also with you.” But it is way cooler, as well as conveying a sense of formality, dignity and honor, to use the ancient manner of speech.

    In my opinion.

  • Dennis Voss

    Dan, #8.
    I didn’t like “invoke,” but couldn’t think of anything else.
    But, I agree with you about the “spirit,” not being capitalized.
    I think we have to take the two statements together. The pastor says to the congregation, “The Lord be with you,” and the congregation echoes back, “[the Lord's Spirit] also with you.”
    I think we are saying the same thing, you just more clearly than I am.

  • Dennis Voss

    Dan, #8.
    I didn’t like “invoke,” but couldn’t think of anything else.
    But, I agree with you about the “spirit,” not being capitalized.
    I think we have to take the two statements together. The pastor says to the congregation, “The Lord be with you,” and the congregation echoes back, “[the Lord's Spirit] also with you.”
    I think we are saying the same thing, you just more clearly than I am.

  • Paul Beisel

    “And with your spirit” is a reference not to the soul of the pastor, but to his Office. Jesus already, of course, had the Spirit of God, but when the Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove, the Spirit is received for his Office as Christ.

    The disciples already had the Spirit in them for their own souls but when Jesus breathes on them and says: “Receive the Holy Spirit…” it is for their Office, and thus, for the benefit of those who hear their words.

    So, to say, “And with thy spirit” is to recognize THE Spirit in the Office of the Pastor.

  • Paul Beisel

    “And with your spirit” is a reference not to the soul of the pastor, but to his Office. Jesus already, of course, had the Spirit of God, but when the Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove, the Spirit is received for his Office as Christ.

    The disciples already had the Spirit in them for their own souls but when Jesus breathes on them and says: “Receive the Holy Spirit…” it is for their Office, and thus, for the benefit of those who hear their words.

    So, to say, “And with thy spirit” is to recognize THE Spirit in the Office of the Pastor.

  • Dan Kempin

    Dennis, #9,

    Agreed. I should have made it clear that I was mostly responding to the “Catholic Explanation” cited above. Your statement is quite correct that the congregation is praying that God will be with the pastor/leader. (That is, “with his spirit.”)

    Paul, #10,

    “So, to say, “And with thy spirit” is to recognize THE Spirit in the Office of the Pastor.”

    No! no! no!

  • Dan Kempin

    Dennis, #9,

    Agreed. I should have made it clear that I was mostly responding to the “Catholic Explanation” cited above. Your statement is quite correct that the congregation is praying that God will be with the pastor/leader. (That is, “with his spirit.”)

    Paul, #10,

    “So, to say, “And with thy spirit” is to recognize THE Spirit in the Office of the Pastor.”

    No! no! no!

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Again, how can it refer to the Holy Spirit? We don’t pray for the Lord to be with the Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit is the Lord. The Lord be with yourself? We have to be praying for the pastor’s spirit.

    That the phrase simply echoes St. Paul’s blessing (Galatians 6:18, etc.), as Tom pointed out, is very helpful and is surely the Biblical basis for the phrase.

    Also, this seems to be an example of the “priesthood of all believers” in action. The pastor is not really praying in saying “the Lord be with you.” He is blessing. The verb is not a request; rather, it is what linguists call “performative.” The words give what they say.

    Then the congregation replies by blessing the pastor! Which means that the congregation too is doing something priestly!

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Again, how can it refer to the Holy Spirit? We don’t pray for the Lord to be with the Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit is the Lord. The Lord be with yourself? We have to be praying for the pastor’s spirit.

    That the phrase simply echoes St. Paul’s blessing (Galatians 6:18, etc.), as Tom pointed out, is very helpful and is surely the Biblical basis for the phrase.

    Also, this seems to be an example of the “priesthood of all believers” in action. The pastor is not really praying in saying “the Lord be with you.” He is blessing. The verb is not a request; rather, it is what linguists call “performative.” The words give what they say.

    Then the congregation replies by blessing the pastor! Which means that the congregation too is doing something priestly!

  • Jonathan

    I know a priest (Franscisan) who always says “Thank you” to the congregation when we say, “And with your spirit,” or, before that, “And also with you.” It’s pleasant to hear and makes the point that this is an exchange of blessings.

    The exchange could be said,
    “The Lord be with you[r spirit],”
    “And with your spirit [as well]“.

  • Jonathan

    I know a priest (Franscisan) who always says “Thank you” to the congregation when we say, “And with your spirit,” or, before that, “And also with you.” It’s pleasant to hear and makes the point that this is an exchange of blessings.

    The exchange could be said,
    “The Lord be with you[r spirit],”
    “And with your spirit [as well]“.

  • moallen

    Interesting – the Lutheran Church I am a member of has used “and with thy Spirit” since I started going there about a year or so ago.

  • moallen

    Interesting – the Lutheran Church I am a member of has used “and with thy Spirit” since I started going there about a year or so ago.

  • Cincinnatus

    Honestly, I think we’re overanalyzing this phrase. “And [the Lord be] with thy spirit” is merely a fancy–and uniquely Christian, given the early Christian emphasis on the spirit–way of saying “And [the Lord be] with you.” Which is why, I submit, the Catholic Church has traditionally translated the Latin simply as “And with you” despite the literal differences. It emphatically does not refer to the Holy Spirit. “The Lord be with you.” “And with thy spirit.” How hard is that? It’s poetically superior, I think, to there mere “And with you,” but I don’t think it represents some kind of theological epiphany among Catholic liturgists.

    First Rudolph, now this. This morning, my bus driver told me to “have a good one.” What could he have meant by this? What is the “one” to which he refers? Could it be a reference to the “One” God of our common monotheism? Sometimes, the common sense reading is the best reading.

  • Cincinnatus

    Honestly, I think we’re overanalyzing this phrase. “And [the Lord be] with thy spirit” is merely a fancy–and uniquely Christian, given the early Christian emphasis on the spirit–way of saying “And [the Lord be] with you.” Which is why, I submit, the Catholic Church has traditionally translated the Latin simply as “And with you” despite the literal differences. It emphatically does not refer to the Holy Spirit. “The Lord be with you.” “And with thy spirit.” How hard is that? It’s poetically superior, I think, to there mere “And with you,” but I don’t think it represents some kind of theological epiphany among Catholic liturgists.

    First Rudolph, now this. This morning, my bus driver told me to “have a good one.” What could he have meant by this? What is the “one” to which he refers? Could it be a reference to the “One” God of our common monotheism? Sometimes, the common sense reading is the best reading.

  • http://lesteverymanbeblind.blogspot.com Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth

    #10 Paul is spot-on. The Salutation is sometimes referred to as “The Little Ordination”. The pastor is making a Gospel Procalamtion by speaking “The Lord be with You.” He’s not saying “Good Day”, but he is actually proclaiming the Lord’s presence in Word and Sacrament in the Divine Service. Thus, the congregation responds by reminding the pastor of his holy orders, his ordination — that is, his charge to deliver the “goods” Christ died to give to His Church. It is completely appropriate for the pastor to bow as he receives this reminder of his sacred charge. I think that whoever suggested the response was for the pastor’s protection is spot-on as well. Handling the sacred, creative gifts of Christ is a fearsome task undertaken only with great humility, reverence, and faith. Interestingly also, the translation was only changed to “And also with you” in English; Spainish and French translations, others?, kept the sense of “And with your spirit.”

  • http://lesteverymanbeblind.blogspot.com Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth

    #10 Paul is spot-on. The Salutation is sometimes referred to as “The Little Ordination”. The pastor is making a Gospel Procalamtion by speaking “The Lord be with You.” He’s not saying “Good Day”, but he is actually proclaiming the Lord’s presence in Word and Sacrament in the Divine Service. Thus, the congregation responds by reminding the pastor of his holy orders, his ordination — that is, his charge to deliver the “goods” Christ died to give to His Church. It is completely appropriate for the pastor to bow as he receives this reminder of his sacred charge. I think that whoever suggested the response was for the pastor’s protection is spot-on as well. Handling the sacred, creative gifts of Christ is a fearsome task undertaken only with great humility, reverence, and faith. Interestingly also, the translation was only changed to “And also with you” in English; Spainish and French translations, others?, kept the sense of “And with your spirit.”

  • Rob C.

    The translation notes from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops states the following:

    Where does this dialogue come from?
    The response et cum spiritu tuo is found in the Liturgies of both East and West, from the earliest days of the Church. One of the first instances of its use is found in the Traditio Apostolica of Saint Hippolytus, composed in Greek around AD 215.

    How is this dialogue used in the Liturgy?
    The dialogue is only used between the priest and the people, or exceptionally, between the deacon and the people. The greeting is never used in the Roman Liturgy between a non-ordained person and the gathered assembly.

    Why does the priest mean when he says “The Lord be with you”?
    By greeting the people with the words “The Lord be with you,” the priest expresses his desire that the dynamic activity of God’s spirit be given to the people of God, enabling them to do the work of transforming the world that God has entrusted to them.

    What do the people mean when they respond “and with your spirit”?
    The expression et cum spiritu tuo is only addressed to an ordained minister. Some scholars have suggested that spiritu refers to the gift of the spirit he received at ordination. In their response, the people assure the priest of the same divine assistance of God’s spirit and, more specifically, help for the priest to use the charismatic gifts given to him in ordination and in so doing to fulfill his prophetic function in the Church.

    St. John Chrysostom, father of the early church (AD 347–407) preached this in his “Homily on the Holy Pentecost” concerning the expression:

    If the Holy Spirit were not in [Bishop Flavian of Antioch] when he gave the peace to all shortly before ascending to his holy sanctuary, you would not have replied to him all together, “and with your spirit.” This is why you reply with this expression not only when he ascends to the sanctuary, nor when he preaches to you, nor when he prays for you, but when he stands at this holy altar, when he is about to offer this awesome sacrifice. You don’t first partake of the offerings until he has prayed for you the grace from the Lord, and you have answered him, “and with your spirit,” reminding yourselves by this reply that he who is here does nothing of his own power, nor are the offered gifts the work of human nature, but is it the grace of the Spirit present and hovering over all things which prepared that mystic sacrifice.

  • Rob C.

    The translation notes from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops states the following:

    Where does this dialogue come from?
    The response et cum spiritu tuo is found in the Liturgies of both East and West, from the earliest days of the Church. One of the first instances of its use is found in the Traditio Apostolica of Saint Hippolytus, composed in Greek around AD 215.

    How is this dialogue used in the Liturgy?
    The dialogue is only used between the priest and the people, or exceptionally, between the deacon and the people. The greeting is never used in the Roman Liturgy between a non-ordained person and the gathered assembly.

    Why does the priest mean when he says “The Lord be with you”?
    By greeting the people with the words “The Lord be with you,” the priest expresses his desire that the dynamic activity of God’s spirit be given to the people of God, enabling them to do the work of transforming the world that God has entrusted to them.

    What do the people mean when they respond “and with your spirit”?
    The expression et cum spiritu tuo is only addressed to an ordained minister. Some scholars have suggested that spiritu refers to the gift of the spirit he received at ordination. In their response, the people assure the priest of the same divine assistance of God’s spirit and, more specifically, help for the priest to use the charismatic gifts given to him in ordination and in so doing to fulfill his prophetic function in the Church.

    St. John Chrysostom, father of the early church (AD 347–407) preached this in his “Homily on the Holy Pentecost” concerning the expression:

    If the Holy Spirit were not in [Bishop Flavian of Antioch] when he gave the peace to all shortly before ascending to his holy sanctuary, you would not have replied to him all together, “and with your spirit.” This is why you reply with this expression not only when he ascends to the sanctuary, nor when he preaches to you, nor when he prays for you, but when he stands at this holy altar, when he is about to offer this awesome sacrifice. You don’t first partake of the offerings until he has prayed for you the grace from the Lord, and you have answered him, “and with your spirit,” reminding yourselves by this reply that he who is here does nothing of his own power, nor are the offered gifts the work of human nature, but is it the grace of the Spirit present and hovering over all things which prepared that mystic sacrifice.

  • Stone the Crows

    The salutation and response has its roots in Ruth 2:4, Judges 6:12 and Luke 1:28. The phrase became embedded in the liturgy as a responsive introduction to new and different parts of the service. And so it precedes the Collect, the Preface, and the Benediction and introduces the collects and prayers in Matins and Vespers.
    The Salutation and its response are not addressed to God but to man. They constitute a reciprocal prayer of the minister for his people and of the congregation for its pastor before they together offer their petitions to God.
    Loehe: “The bonds of love and unity between pastor and people are tied anew.’

  • Stone the Crows

    The salutation and response has its roots in Ruth 2:4, Judges 6:12 and Luke 1:28. The phrase became embedded in the liturgy as a responsive introduction to new and different parts of the service. And so it precedes the Collect, the Preface, and the Benediction and introduces the collects and prayers in Matins and Vespers.
    The Salutation and its response are not addressed to God but to man. They constitute a reciprocal prayer of the minister for his people and of the congregation for its pastor before they together offer their petitions to God.
    Loehe: “The bonds of love and unity between pastor and people are tied anew.’

  • organistsandra

    I once ran across an old bulletin from the 1970′s, that had the most hilarious version of this response I’ve ever seen.
    Pastor: The Lord get through to you.
    People: And especially to you.

  • organistsandra

    I once ran across an old bulletin from the 1970′s, that had the most hilarious version of this response I’ve ever seen.
    Pastor: The Lord get through to you.
    People: And especially to you.

  • Stone the Crows

    ^ Darn hymnal supplements! :) that’s closer to what’s on our hearts and minds than anything else.

  • Stone the Crows

    ^ Darn hymnal supplements! :) that’s closer to what’s on our hearts and minds than anything else.

  • Ned Moerbe

    I think the most helpful annalysis of this topic is foundin Timothy Quill’s “The Impact of the Liturgical Movement on American Lutheransim” volume #3 of the Drew Series in Liturgy published by Scarecrow press, pp167ff. Stone the Crows @#18 seems to be referencing the same work.

    I think it is helpful to consider how spirits are refered to in Scripture in the context of a man speaking for God in the office. Consider Micaiah’s prophecy in 1 Kings 22 and the lying spirit that he sees and John’s description of Jesus as the God of the spirits of the prophets in Revelation 22:6.

    Also there is the New Testament admonishion to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). The spirits to be tested are not ghosts floating around visiting churches, but are heard in the preaching of the men. Some of those men deny the truth of Christ and show themselves to have the spirit of the anti-Christ (1 John 4:3). Other men rightly confess the true doctrine that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (and the full implication of what that means). This right teaching is how one discerns if the Holy Spirit is working in a pastor and in his spirit (read 4:3 carefully – “EVERY spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” ESV emphasis added). The response “and with thy spirit” is not asking that the Lord would be with the Holy Spirit, but that the Lord would keep the spirit (specifically the spirit given to the man at his ordination) with the Holy Spirit so that He will say and do what God has established the office to make done and be done.

    The use of the word spirit is not just the Christian response because it is ancient and unique, it is a Christian response because it confesses what God is doing and how he does it in the office He has established. Wether or not it is capitalized becomes a moot point when one considers that the spirit of the prophet cannot utter a word for God without the Holy Spirit.

  • Ned Moerbe

    I think the most helpful annalysis of this topic is foundin Timothy Quill’s “The Impact of the Liturgical Movement on American Lutheransim” volume #3 of the Drew Series in Liturgy published by Scarecrow press, pp167ff. Stone the Crows @#18 seems to be referencing the same work.

    I think it is helpful to consider how spirits are refered to in Scripture in the context of a man speaking for God in the office. Consider Micaiah’s prophecy in 1 Kings 22 and the lying spirit that he sees and John’s description of Jesus as the God of the spirits of the prophets in Revelation 22:6.

    Also there is the New Testament admonishion to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). The spirits to be tested are not ghosts floating around visiting churches, but are heard in the preaching of the men. Some of those men deny the truth of Christ and show themselves to have the spirit of the anti-Christ (1 John 4:3). Other men rightly confess the true doctrine that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh (and the full implication of what that means). This right teaching is how one discerns if the Holy Spirit is working in a pastor and in his spirit (read 4:3 carefully – “EVERY spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God.” ESV emphasis added). The response “and with thy spirit” is not asking that the Lord would be with the Holy Spirit, but that the Lord would keep the spirit (specifically the spirit given to the man at his ordination) with the Holy Spirit so that He will say and do what God has established the office to make done and be done.

    The use of the word spirit is not just the Christian response because it is ancient and unique, it is a Christian response because it confesses what God is doing and how he does it in the office He has established. Wether or not it is capitalized becomes a moot point when one considers that the spirit of the prophet cannot utter a word for God without the Holy Spirit.

  • Dan Kempin

    Paul, #10, Jon, #16, and Ned, #21,

    Sorry, but I think you are reading too much into a liturgical phrase here. You go to far in saying that the salutation and response are about ordination and the office of the public Ministry. There are plenty of other places to learn that doctrine without reading it into the liturgy here.

  • Dan Kempin

    Paul, #10, Jon, #16, and Ned, #21,

    Sorry, but I think you are reading too much into a liturgical phrase here. You go to far in saying that the salutation and response are about ordination and the office of the public Ministry. There are plenty of other places to learn that doctrine without reading it into the liturgy here.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Thanks, Ned. (Dan, there is a lot of meaning charged into every part of the liturgy. We see that in what Chrystostom says and many others in his train.) So it is the pastor’s spirit. It’s a spirit that needs to confess Jesus is Lord, etc., and thus be from the Holy Spirit. I think I’m getting it.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Thanks, Ned. (Dan, there is a lot of meaning charged into every part of the liturgy. We see that in what Chrystostom says and many others in his train.) So it is the pastor’s spirit. It’s a spirit that needs to confess Jesus is Lord, etc., and thus be from the Holy Spirit. I think I’m getting it.

  • http://www.thegiftoffaith.blogspot.com Miguel

    Fascinating discussion, and helpful to one new in planning and leading Lutheran worship. I’ve heard, like #10 above, that it refers to the office. In an age of entrepreneurial spirit dictating religion, I’m all for anything that bolsters ecclesiology by emphasizing ordination. If the correct translation was “and also with you,” then this becomes kinda just a greeting. Why have the pastor even lead it? Why not just have everyone turn to each other and say it like in the passing of the peace? And it just sounds too much like Star Wars.
    On the flip side, if something requires this much explanation and speculation as to origin, meaning, and intent, it is most certainly lost on 99.99 percent of the laity, which calls into question whether this tradition will continue to survive the onslaught of generational iconoclasm. Will Lutheran worship in 200 years still contain this? Should it?

  • http://www.thegiftoffaith.blogspot.com Miguel

    Fascinating discussion, and helpful to one new in planning and leading Lutheran worship. I’ve heard, like #10 above, that it refers to the office. In an age of entrepreneurial spirit dictating religion, I’m all for anything that bolsters ecclesiology by emphasizing ordination. If the correct translation was “and also with you,” then this becomes kinda just a greeting. Why have the pastor even lead it? Why not just have everyone turn to each other and say it like in the passing of the peace? And it just sounds too much like Star Wars.
    On the flip side, if something requires this much explanation and speculation as to origin, meaning, and intent, it is most certainly lost on 99.99 percent of the laity, which calls into question whether this tradition will continue to survive the onslaught of generational iconoclasm. Will Lutheran worship in 200 years still contain this? Should it?

  • Paul Beisel

    Dr. Veith, et. al., you can read it however you want, but the historic understanding of that exchange is about the Office. It’s almost like the the congregation is giving permission to their pastor to carry out his Office/duties on their behalf. It’s like their saying, “Go ahead and pray on our behalf, and conduct the public service.” The Spirit is with the pastor in a way that He is not with every individual Christian–it is the presence of Christ.

    If you have a problem with the idea of the response referring to this because “the Lord would not say and with his Spirit,” what do you do with the Psalm which says, “The Lord said to my Lord…”

    A pastor receives the Spirit for his Office. That is what is meant when Christ says: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” This is why the unordained do not say: “The Lord be with you” either in Matins or in the Divine Service. At the daily Office the exchange is: “O Lord, hear my prayer; R: And let my cry come to you.”

    But take it however you want.

  • Paul Beisel

    Dr. Veith, et. al., you can read it however you want, but the historic understanding of that exchange is about the Office. It’s almost like the the congregation is giving permission to their pastor to carry out his Office/duties on their behalf. It’s like their saying, “Go ahead and pray on our behalf, and conduct the public service.” The Spirit is with the pastor in a way that He is not with every individual Christian–it is the presence of Christ.

    If you have a problem with the idea of the response referring to this because “the Lord would not say and with his Spirit,” what do you do with the Psalm which says, “The Lord said to my Lord…”

    A pastor receives the Spirit for his Office. That is what is meant when Christ says: “Receive the Holy Spirit.” This is why the unordained do not say: “The Lord be with you” either in Matins or in the Divine Service. At the daily Office the exchange is: “O Lord, hear my prayer; R: And let my cry come to you.”

    But take it however you want.

  • Paul Beisel

    By the way, sorry for my poor spelling and grammar in that last post. Ugh!

  • Paul Beisel

    By the way, sorry for my poor spelling and grammar in that last post. Ugh!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    ” it is most certainly lost on 99.99 percent of the laity,”

    Yeah, well it wouldn’t be lost on us if it were explained.

    So, thanks, Dr. Veith, for bringing it up.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    ” it is most certainly lost on 99.99 percent of the laity,”

    Yeah, well it wouldn’t be lost on us if it were explained.

    So, thanks, Dr. Veith, for bringing it up.

  • Dan Kempin

    Paul, #25,

    “The Spirit is with the pastor in a way that He is not with every individual Christian”

    Whoah! That is very much not lutheran. We teach that God the Spirit works faith through the means of grace when and where He pleases, not through a sacerdotal character imparted at ordination. The pastor has a public call to minister the means of grace, not a special bestowal of the Holy Spirit.

  • Dan Kempin

    Paul, #25,

    “The Spirit is with the pastor in a way that He is not with every individual Christian”

    Whoah! That is very much not lutheran. We teach that God the Spirit works faith through the means of grace when and where He pleases, not through a sacerdotal character imparted at ordination. The pastor has a public call to minister the means of grace, not a special bestowal of the Holy Spirit.

  • Paul Beisel

    Who said anything about a “sacerdotal character?” All I said was that the pastor receives the Spirit for His Office. Is that unLutheran? I say it by extension of John 20: “And he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

    It is also to recognize that Jesus (who, of all people, already possessed the Spirit) receives the Spirit in a special way at his Baptism for the carrying out of His Ministry.

    So also does the Apostle Paul say: “Do not neglect the gift that is within you by the laying on of my hands…” And he says in the same context to Timothy, the pastor, “For God gave us not a spirit of fear, but of power and love and of self-control” (2 Timothy 1:7). I don’t think Paul is just speaking to Timothy about the Spirit that dwells in all believers through faith.

    Maybe I overstated things a bit. I’m open to correction. But you’re going to have to show me conclusively that when Jesus breathes on the disciples and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit” that he is speaking there merely to them as Christians, and not as apostles.

  • Paul Beisel

    Who said anything about a “sacerdotal character?” All I said was that the pastor receives the Spirit for His Office. Is that unLutheran? I say it by extension of John 20: “And he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

    It is also to recognize that Jesus (who, of all people, already possessed the Spirit) receives the Spirit in a special way at his Baptism for the carrying out of His Ministry.

    So also does the Apostle Paul say: “Do not neglect the gift that is within you by the laying on of my hands…” And he says in the same context to Timothy, the pastor, “For God gave us not a spirit of fear, but of power and love and of self-control” (2 Timothy 1:7). I don’t think Paul is just speaking to Timothy about the Spirit that dwells in all believers through faith.

    Maybe I overstated things a bit. I’m open to correction. But you’re going to have to show me conclusively that when Jesus breathes on the disciples and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit” that he is speaking there merely to them as Christians, and not as apostles.

  • Cincinnatus

    Paul@29: Your main problem seems to be that you’re concocting an interpretation of this portion of the liturgy out of whole cloth. I agree with you and others when you claim that there is something theologically significant going on here–i.e., that’s it not simply a fancy-pants way of saying “Hi. Have a nice day.” Rather, as Dr. Veith states, it has something to do with preparing the ground for the administration of the Sacraments, etc. But “cum spiritu tuo” referring to the Holy Spirit? Sorry, I need a source.

  • Cincinnatus

    Paul@29: Your main problem seems to be that you’re concocting an interpretation of this portion of the liturgy out of whole cloth. I agree with you and others when you claim that there is something theologically significant going on here–i.e., that’s it not simply a fancy-pants way of saying “Hi. Have a nice day.” Rather, as Dr. Veith states, it has something to do with preparing the ground for the administration of the Sacraments, etc. But “cum spiritu tuo” referring to the Holy Spirit? Sorry, I need a source.

  • Dust

    Cincinnatus at 15-ish…you crack me up, well, and of course, your good spirit too :)

  • Dust

    Cincinnatus at 15-ish…you crack me up, well, and of course, your good spirit too :)

  • http://www.whenisayrunrun.blogspot.com Andrew

    as also found in the eastern and western rites of the Orthodox church such as
    The Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon- West
    The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory- West
    The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom- East
    The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great- East

    On the subject of weird phrases, I was told to take care this morning, I replied that I will try not to fall into any holes on my way to the car. I find that phrase odd.

  • http://www.whenisayrunrun.blogspot.com Andrew

    as also found in the eastern and western rites of the Orthodox church such as
    The Divine Liturgy of St. Tikhon- West
    The Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory- West
    The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom- East
    The Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great- East

    On the subject of weird phrases, I was told to take care this morning, I replied that I will try not to fall into any holes on my way to the car. I find that phrase odd.

  • Joanne

    The Greek liturgy (Chrisostom), uses this response in six places saying “Peace to all .. And with your spirit.” However in two places we get The grace …, and then The mercy of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ be with all of you .. And with your spirit. It’s remarkably developed compared to our use of the response. Peace, grace, and mercy be with your spirit.

    One might wonder why the priest doesn’t say, “Peace be with your spirit” when addressing the congregation; the word spirit is conspicuously absent in the part addressed to the congregation. Since the liturgy is doctrine in every jot and tittle, I don’t doubt that the absence of the word is an intentional indication of a point of doctrine.
    So, why does the priest not give peace to the spirit of the worshipers, but the worshipers do give peace to the spirit of the priest? A distinction is being made between the spirit of the priest and the spirit of the faithful worshipers. Why?

    On another thread, we have a body and a soul. Some teach that we have in addition a spirit as well. However, Lutherans do not teach this. So, whatever spirit we are discussing here in the liturgy is not our human spirit, but must be a spirit that God gives us when we come to faith, or perhaps attain an holy office. We all receive The Holy Spirit at baptism, but what spirit, breathing, is this?

    Ordination is not a means of grace nor is the laying on of hands, so what spirit does the priest have that we acknowledge here in the liturgy? Has God connected promises of the forgiveness of sins and a special spirit to the office of the clergy? Lutherans say no.

    Isn’t there only one Spirit?

  • Joanne

    The Greek liturgy (Chrisostom), uses this response in six places saying “Peace to all .. And with your spirit.” However in two places we get The grace …, and then The mercy of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ be with all of you .. And with your spirit. It’s remarkably developed compared to our use of the response. Peace, grace, and mercy be with your spirit.

    One might wonder why the priest doesn’t say, “Peace be with your spirit” when addressing the congregation; the word spirit is conspicuously absent in the part addressed to the congregation. Since the liturgy is doctrine in every jot and tittle, I don’t doubt that the absence of the word is an intentional indication of a point of doctrine.
    So, why does the priest not give peace to the spirit of the worshipers, but the worshipers do give peace to the spirit of the priest? A distinction is being made between the spirit of the priest and the spirit of the faithful worshipers. Why?

    On another thread, we have a body and a soul. Some teach that we have in addition a spirit as well. However, Lutherans do not teach this. So, whatever spirit we are discussing here in the liturgy is not our human spirit, but must be a spirit that God gives us when we come to faith, or perhaps attain an holy office. We all receive The Holy Spirit at baptism, but what spirit, breathing, is this?

    Ordination is not a means of grace nor is the laying on of hands, so what spirit does the priest have that we acknowledge here in the liturgy? Has God connected promises of the forgiveness of sins and a special spirit to the office of the clergy? Lutherans say no.

    Isn’t there only one Spirit?

  • fws

    Try this out:

    Kenneth Korby used to say that the exchange of the Peace was really a mini absolution. We are forgiving the sins of each other.

    Joanne: No we Lutherans do not believe that the acts of the Pastor depend upon some special charism given in ordination that makes the pastor’s acts valid according to his person. Where is that found in the Confessions: One place is in Apology Art VII that defines the Holy Catholic Church as the visible church, and says it is an earthly government that will perish with the earth that is like any other government of family or society. And pastors are placed there to be rulers. But this government called the HCC consists of hipocrites mixed with true believers.

    So what is it that make us certain that the acts of that potentially hipocritical pastor are valid? the words of Christ. The words of Christ are both Law and Gospel. God rules in all we can see and Do by the Law. Then, “in , with and under” what is seen and done which is ALL done by sinful human hands, God rules , “in a way that comes that cannot be seen ” by faith alone in Christ alone.

    This is what Lutherans are saying when we say that “God always works through means.” We are really saying that God always brings his Rulership by means of Good Works! And our confessions, in this exact way, will conceed that in this sense , we are saved by Good Works. This sense is called “synectoche.”

    So Word and Sacrament are Law, and their administration is a Good Work that is extorted out of the Old Adam of our pastors, in that they command pastors to administer the Laws of the govt called the HCC that we know as word and sacrament. In this government doctrine functions like city ordinances.

    then there is gospel too. In those ordinances and in that government alone, “in, with and under” those Law things pastors are obligated to do in Church Christ places a Promise. Faith clings to that promise, right where Christ tells us to look for it and find it, and right there receives the Promised Mercy. Justification always comes to us in this three-fold way. (apology art IV).

  • fws

    Try this out:

    Kenneth Korby used to say that the exchange of the Peace was really a mini absolution. We are forgiving the sins of each other.

    Joanne: No we Lutherans do not believe that the acts of the Pastor depend upon some special charism given in ordination that makes the pastor’s acts valid according to his person. Where is that found in the Confessions: One place is in Apology Art VII that defines the Holy Catholic Church as the visible church, and says it is an earthly government that will perish with the earth that is like any other government of family or society. And pastors are placed there to be rulers. But this government called the HCC consists of hipocrites mixed with true believers.

    So what is it that make us certain that the acts of that potentially hipocritical pastor are valid? the words of Christ. The words of Christ are both Law and Gospel. God rules in all we can see and Do by the Law. Then, “in , with and under” what is seen and done which is ALL done by sinful human hands, God rules , “in a way that comes that cannot be seen ” by faith alone in Christ alone.

    This is what Lutherans are saying when we say that “God always works through means.” We are really saying that God always brings his Rulership by means of Good Works! And our confessions, in this exact way, will conceed that in this sense , we are saved by Good Works. This sense is called “synectoche.”

    So Word and Sacrament are Law, and their administration is a Good Work that is extorted out of the Old Adam of our pastors, in that they command pastors to administer the Laws of the govt called the HCC that we know as word and sacrament. In this government doctrine functions like city ordinances.

    then there is gospel too. In those ordinances and in that government alone, “in, with and under” those Law things pastors are obligated to do in Church Christ places a Promise. Faith clings to that promise, right where Christ tells us to look for it and find it, and right there receives the Promised Mercy. Justification always comes to us in this three-fold way. (apology art IV).

  • Dust

    Rock on fws….and thank you!

  • Dust

    Rock on fws….and thank you!

  • Paul G

    Right on Frank!

  • Paul G

    Right on Frank!

  • Dan Kempin

    Brother Paul, #29,

    I think (or at least presume) that I know the point you wish to make: The pastoral office is a divine office, given so that grace may be obtained through the means he ministers. It is a distinct office. The pastor, however humble or flawed, is God’s man. When he faithfully speaks the Word of God, that Word can be trusted as though spoken from God himself.

    And yes, the Spirit of the living God is certainly with His servant. No doubt. None of that is my objection.

    However, when you say that the Spirit is present with a pastor “in a way that He is not with [laity,]” that is problematic. The pastor speaks the Word of God with authority not because he is vested with authority, but because it is the Word of God that he speaks. His ministry is valid because Christ has established his office, not because he has been bestowed a special measure of the Holy Spirit. Should a non-ordained member confront a pastor with the Word of God, the pastor would be just as obligated to hear. Conversely, it would transgress the bounds of the office for a pastor to claim any role beyond that given (such as “vision caster”) because of a special presence of the Holy Spirit.

    I am quite confident that you did not intend any of this, but your unfortunate phrasing left the door wide open for misinterpretation–particularly against the backdrop of a Catholic (and sacerdotal) explanation of the liturgy.

    The Lord be with you.

  • Dan Kempin

    Brother Paul, #29,

    I think (or at least presume) that I know the point you wish to make: The pastoral office is a divine office, given so that grace may be obtained through the means he ministers. It is a distinct office. The pastor, however humble or flawed, is God’s man. When he faithfully speaks the Word of God, that Word can be trusted as though spoken from God himself.

    And yes, the Spirit of the living God is certainly with His servant. No doubt. None of that is my objection.

    However, when you say that the Spirit is present with a pastor “in a way that He is not with [laity,]” that is problematic. The pastor speaks the Word of God with authority not because he is vested with authority, but because it is the Word of God that he speaks. His ministry is valid because Christ has established his office, not because he has been bestowed a special measure of the Holy Spirit. Should a non-ordained member confront a pastor with the Word of God, the pastor would be just as obligated to hear. Conversely, it would transgress the bounds of the office for a pastor to claim any role beyond that given (such as “vision caster”) because of a special presence of the Holy Spirit.

    I am quite confident that you did not intend any of this, but your unfortunate phrasing left the door wide open for misinterpretation–particularly against the backdrop of a Catholic (and sacerdotal) explanation of the liturgy.

    The Lord be with you.

  • George A. Marquart

    Paul Beisel writes, “But you’re going to have to show me conclusively that when Jesus breathes on the disciples and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit” that he is speaking there merely to them as Christians, and not as apostles.”

    First, the expression “merely … as Christians” is an abomination. It trivializes the entire life, suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord. It makes “the Pearl of Great Price” or “the Treasure hidden in a field” into “mere” commodities. It is true that we hold the Apostles in high esteem, even as Scripture testifies that the names of the twelve Apostles are written on the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14). But the difference between a person of this world and a member of God’s Kingdom is infinitely greater than that between the Apostles and an “ordinary” Christian. Even St. Paul refers to some who were not among the Twelve as “Apostles”. Of himself he confesses that he was the greatest sinner before the Lord came to him on the Road to Damascus, acknowledging that the gift of eternal life is infinitely greater than the gift of Apostleship.

    Secondly, before the Apostles received the Holy Spirit from our Lord, they were not Christians. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that anyone in whom the Holy Spirit does not dwell is not a Christian, Romans 8: 9, “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” They did not “have” the Holy Spirit on the night our Lord was betrayed, because on that occasion our Lord spoke quite clearly, John 14: 16, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. 17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.” Note the use of the words “with you” and “in you”. Nowhere in Scripture is there mention of the Apostles receiving the Holy Spirit between these words and when our Lord breathed on them in the evening of Easter Sunday, three days later.

    The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is one of the signs of the New Covenant. John 7: 37 “On the last day of the festival, the great day, while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, 38 and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, “Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water.’ ” 39 Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” Therefore the Holy Spirit did not dwell in any believer until our Lord rose from the dead.

    The Apostles did not receive the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Nobody receives the Holy Spirit more than once. According to the promise of our Lord, Acts 1:8, “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you” (note that it is “upon you” as He did indeed alight on them). That is what happened on Pentecost. But the intervening 50 days were given so that all Christians could know that even as they receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism, only the eyes of faith know of the miracle that has taken place. There is no sudden speaking in tongues, working of miracles, or prophesying, exactly as was the case with the Apostles when they received the Holy Spirit. During those 50 days the Apostles became involved in the same kind of mischief as we ordinary saved sinners – Acts 1 is clear testimony to that fact. But on Pentecost they received “power” – a very special, unique gift that was never to be repeated.

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    Paul Beisel writes, “But you’re going to have to show me conclusively that when Jesus breathes on the disciples and says, “Receive the Holy Spirit” that he is speaking there merely to them as Christians, and not as apostles.”

    First, the expression “merely … as Christians” is an abomination. It trivializes the entire life, suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord. It makes “the Pearl of Great Price” or “the Treasure hidden in a field” into “mere” commodities. It is true that we hold the Apostles in high esteem, even as Scripture testifies that the names of the twelve Apostles are written on the foundations of the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:14). But the difference between a person of this world and a member of God’s Kingdom is infinitely greater than that between the Apostles and an “ordinary” Christian. Even St. Paul refers to some who were not among the Twelve as “Apostles”. Of himself he confesses that he was the greatest sinner before the Lord came to him on the Road to Damascus, acknowledging that the gift of eternal life is infinitely greater than the gift of Apostleship.

    Secondly, before the Apostles received the Holy Spirit from our Lord, they were not Christians. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that anyone in whom the Holy Spirit does not dwell is not a Christian, Romans 8: 9, “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” They did not “have” the Holy Spirit on the night our Lord was betrayed, because on that occasion our Lord spoke quite clearly, John 14: 16, “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you forever. 17 This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you.” Note the use of the words “with you” and “in you”. Nowhere in Scripture is there mention of the Apostles receiving the Holy Spirit between these words and when our Lord breathed on them in the evening of Easter Sunday, three days later.

    The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is one of the signs of the New Covenant. John 7: 37 “On the last day of the festival, the great day, while Jesus was standing there, he cried out, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, 38 and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, “Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water.’ ” 39 Now he said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.” Therefore the Holy Spirit did not dwell in any believer until our Lord rose from the dead.

    The Apostles did not receive the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. Nobody receives the Holy Spirit more than once. According to the promise of our Lord, Acts 1:8, “you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you” (note that it is “upon you” as He did indeed alight on them). That is what happened on Pentecost. But the intervening 50 days were given so that all Christians could know that even as they receive the Holy Spirit in Baptism, only the eyes of faith know of the miracle that has taken place. There is no sudden speaking in tongues, working of miracles, or prophesying, exactly as was the case with the Apostles when they received the Holy Spirit. During those 50 days the Apostles became involved in the same kind of mischief as we ordinary saved sinners – Acts 1 is clear testimony to that fact. But on Pentecost they received “power” – a very special, unique gift that was never to be repeated.

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • http://lesteverymanbeblind.blogspot.com Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth

    You should read Dr. David Scaer’s paper “Ordination: Human Rite or Divine Ordinance”

    http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/ScaerOrdinationHumanRiteorDivineOrdinance.pdf

    Here’s a quote concerning 1 Timothy 4:14 which Scaer translates “Do not neglect the gift that is in you (en soi charismatos = ‘in you’ gift): The charisma, possessed by Timothy, is further described as existing “in you,” en soi. The gift or endowment which has been transmitted to Timothy involves function, an obligation even a sacred duty. What he possesses, he is obligated to use. While there is no suggestion Timothy has undergone any type of internal transsubstantiation, the pericope certainly indicates that a type of consubstantiation has taken place. There is in a real sense an exchange of attributes between the gift and Timothy. This is a genus idiomaticum of a different type. Paul says that Timothy has a gift which exists within him. The “in you” cannot be overemphasized. It is repeated in 2 Tim. 1:6. Something divine and not human has been given Timothy. It also has a certain objective character in that it has been given to him from the outside.

    Points of emphasis:
    “The gift or endowment has been transmitted to Timothy.” “What he possesses he is obligated to use” — this is what “and with thy spirit” is reminding the pastor of. Not “transsubstantiation” but “certainly indicates that a type of consubstantiation has taken place.” “There is in a real sense an exchange of attributes between the gift and Timothy. This is a genus idimaticum of a different type.” “The ‘in you’ cannot be overemphasized.” “it has been given to him from the outside.”

  • http://lesteverymanbeblind.blogspot.com Rev. Jon M. Ellingworth

    You should read Dr. David Scaer’s paper “Ordination: Human Rite or Divine Ordinance”

    http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/ScaerOrdinationHumanRiteorDivineOrdinance.pdf

    Here’s a quote concerning 1 Timothy 4:14 which Scaer translates “Do not neglect the gift that is in you (en soi charismatos = ‘in you’ gift): The charisma, possessed by Timothy, is further described as existing “in you,” en soi. The gift or endowment which has been transmitted to Timothy involves function, an obligation even a sacred duty. What he possesses, he is obligated to use. While there is no suggestion Timothy has undergone any type of internal transsubstantiation, the pericope certainly indicates that a type of consubstantiation has taken place. There is in a real sense an exchange of attributes between the gift and Timothy. This is a genus idiomaticum of a different type. Paul says that Timothy has a gift which exists within him. The “in you” cannot be overemphasized. It is repeated in 2 Tim. 1:6. Something divine and not human has been given Timothy. It also has a certain objective character in that it has been given to him from the outside.

    Points of emphasis:
    “The gift or endowment has been transmitted to Timothy.” “What he possesses he is obligated to use” — this is what “and with thy spirit” is reminding the pastor of. Not “transsubstantiation” but “certainly indicates that a type of consubstantiation has taken place.” “There is in a real sense an exchange of attributes between the gift and Timothy. This is a genus idimaticum of a different type.” “The ‘in you’ cannot be overemphasized.” “it has been given to him from the outside.”

  • Paul Beisel

    Only one Spirit–indeed! As in, “there are a variety of gifts, but the same Spirit.” If the Spirit is not given, in an official capacity through Call/Ordination, then why bring out all of the Pentecost hymns for an ordination/installation? Why the color red for Pentecost? After all, the newly called pastor already has “The Spirit,” so why all the hubbub?

    Is it so out of the question to say that a Christian, who already possesses the Spirit for faith and salvation, can be given “the Spirit” for the purpose of the Office he bears, that is, for the sake of the people?

  • Paul Beisel

    Only one Spirit–indeed! As in, “there are a variety of gifts, but the same Spirit.” If the Spirit is not given, in an official capacity through Call/Ordination, then why bring out all of the Pentecost hymns for an ordination/installation? Why the color red for Pentecost? After all, the newly called pastor already has “The Spirit,” so why all the hubbub?

    Is it so out of the question to say that a Christian, who already possesses the Spirit for faith and salvation, can be given “the Spirit” for the purpose of the Office he bears, that is, for the sake of the people?

  • fws

    Pastor Kempin @ 37

    The pastor speaks the Word of God with authority not because he is vested with authority, but because it is the Word of God that he speaks.

    Dan I would suggest that this is not quite it. I would encourage you two read Apology art VII on the Church in the sense that they are saying that the Holy Catholic Church is a visible and earthly government in exactly the same sense that family and society are governments. In other words these 3 “ordos” or governments are ordered or “ordained” by God yet are all earthly Romans 8 things of the flesh/body that will perish with the earth.

    So in this sense pastors are rulers of that earthly government called the HCC in exactly the same sense as a judge rules in society or a father rules in the family.

    Doctrine is the Law of the government called the HCC. See the preface to the Small Catechism for an interesting take on this. Pastors are to rule their congretations here in all we can see and do in church, just as a judge must both administer the Law and also has no authority apart from it. In this sense the idea here of “office” is exactly identical to that of a judge or other earthly ruler. What you said misses the idea of public office I am suggesting and so it is incomplete. This is the part that the WELS misses with their doctrine of ministry I think.

    Note that FC art VI says that the preaching of the Law and even the Gospel pertain to this earthly existence only. They are repeating that what happpens in the HCC in all we can see and do there is Law, law, law extorting goodness and mercy out of Pastoral Old Adams whom might be hipocrites or true believers.

    Then, in, with and under that early Govt called the HCC is the Communion of Saints, the heavenly kingdom that comes in a way that cannot be seen.

    This is how our Apology explains the Apostles Creed where it says “Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints”. They suggest this is precisely a Law (HCC) and Gospel (COS) distinction, which is precisely also a Two Kingdoms distinction , since Two Kingdoms is precisely the casuistic version of Law and Gospel Distinction.

    His ministry is valid because Christ has established his office, not because he has been bestowed a special measure of the Holy Spirit.

    This part is extremely important. There are some even in the SELK, the Lutheran body we are affiliated with in Germany that are suggesting that there is no Blessed Sacrament of the Altar when the elements are consecrated by a female pastor. This thinking is precisely what you object to here. The Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, as all of the acts of the Holy Catholic Church are valid because the are done according to the command and word of Christ. The validity of the actions does not depend upon the person of the pastor.

    Our Apology in Art VII therefore also makes the point that in the HCC and so also the roster of pastors, there are both hipocrites and true believers and the acts of both are equally valid. Why? What is done is done according to the Word and Command of Christ. Again if one thinks of the concept of “office” even in secular society, then how this works and why it is all very important becomes clear.

    Police officers wear uniforms for an important reason. That same reason applies to pastors as well. And even if the pastor wears high heals then, or is morally bankrupt, or seems to have NO holy spirit, we can be certain that when we receive the absolution from that pastor, that his words are as sure and certain as if they were spoken to us by Christ himself. Because they are!

  • fws

    Pastor Kempin @ 37

    The pastor speaks the Word of God with authority not because he is vested with authority, but because it is the Word of God that he speaks.

    Dan I would suggest that this is not quite it. I would encourage you two read Apology art VII on the Church in the sense that they are saying that the Holy Catholic Church is a visible and earthly government in exactly the same sense that family and society are governments. In other words these 3 “ordos” or governments are ordered or “ordained” by God yet are all earthly Romans 8 things of the flesh/body that will perish with the earth.

    So in this sense pastors are rulers of that earthly government called the HCC in exactly the same sense as a judge rules in society or a father rules in the family.

    Doctrine is the Law of the government called the HCC. See the preface to the Small Catechism for an interesting take on this. Pastors are to rule their congretations here in all we can see and do in church, just as a judge must both administer the Law and also has no authority apart from it. In this sense the idea here of “office” is exactly identical to that of a judge or other earthly ruler. What you said misses the idea of public office I am suggesting and so it is incomplete. This is the part that the WELS misses with their doctrine of ministry I think.

    Note that FC art VI says that the preaching of the Law and even the Gospel pertain to this earthly existence only. They are repeating that what happpens in the HCC in all we can see and do there is Law, law, law extorting goodness and mercy out of Pastoral Old Adams whom might be hipocrites or true believers.

    Then, in, with and under that early Govt called the HCC is the Communion of Saints, the heavenly kingdom that comes in a way that cannot be seen.

    This is how our Apology explains the Apostles Creed where it says “Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints”. They suggest this is precisely a Law (HCC) and Gospel (COS) distinction, which is precisely also a Two Kingdoms distinction , since Two Kingdoms is precisely the casuistic version of Law and Gospel Distinction.

    His ministry is valid because Christ has established his office, not because he has been bestowed a special measure of the Holy Spirit.

    This part is extremely important. There are some even in the SELK, the Lutheran body we are affiliated with in Germany that are suggesting that there is no Blessed Sacrament of the Altar when the elements are consecrated by a female pastor. This thinking is precisely what you object to here. The Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, as all of the acts of the Holy Catholic Church are valid because the are done according to the command and word of Christ. The validity of the actions does not depend upon the person of the pastor.

    Our Apology in Art VII therefore also makes the point that in the HCC and so also the roster of pastors, there are both hipocrites and true believers and the acts of both are equally valid. Why? What is done is done according to the Word and Command of Christ. Again if one thinks of the concept of “office” even in secular society, then how this works and why it is all very important becomes clear.

    Police officers wear uniforms for an important reason. That same reason applies to pastors as well. And even if the pastor wears high heals then, or is morally bankrupt, or seems to have NO holy spirit, we can be certain that when we receive the absolution from that pastor, that his words are as sure and certain as if they were spoken to us by Christ himself. Because they are!

  • George A. Marquart

    Paul Beisel @ 40. You ask, “Is it so out of the question to say that a Christian, who already possesses the Spirit for faith and salvation, can be given “the Spirit” for the purpose of the Office he bears, that is, for the sake of the people?” Answer, “Yes, it is out of the question, because you cannot support your position with Scripture.” The Spirit is the one Lord the Holy Spirit; He is not some multipurpose elixir given for a variety of purposes. He is given once to the child of God, in whom He will accomplish His purpose. For some reason we ignore the gifts of the Spirit and instead we want “more” or a “different” Spirit. The call to the ministry is not the result of a “unique” kind of Spirit, but a gift given by the One Spirit, but not to every one. 1 Cor. 12: 4” Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.” You see, “as the Spirit chooses,” not “depending one the kind of spirit one gets.”

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    Paul Beisel @ 40. You ask, “Is it so out of the question to say that a Christian, who already possesses the Spirit for faith and salvation, can be given “the Spirit” for the purpose of the Office he bears, that is, for the sake of the people?” Answer, “Yes, it is out of the question, because you cannot support your position with Scripture.” The Spirit is the one Lord the Holy Spirit; He is not some multipurpose elixir given for a variety of purposes. He is given once to the child of God, in whom He will accomplish His purpose. For some reason we ignore the gifts of the Spirit and instead we want “more” or a “different” Spirit. The call to the ministry is not the result of a “unique” kind of Spirit, but a gift given by the One Spirit, but not to every one. 1 Cor. 12: 4” Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8 To one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11 All these are activated by one and the same Spirit, who allots to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses.” You see, “as the Spirit chooses,” not “depending one the kind of spirit one gets.”

    Peace and Joy!
    George A. Marquart

  • Dan Kempin

    Fws, #41,

    I hesitate to respond because, once again, your comment is so deep as to require more time for thought than I am able to give. Since we haven’t tucked in for a while, though, I’ll give it a go. Forgive me if I am hasty.

    I did re-read article VII of the Apology, (and I bless you for encouraging me to go back to the confessions.) The discussion there was the distinction of the visible church and the true (unseen) church. The papists definition of church was defined, somewhat sardonically, as global and unquestioned authority of the pope in all things (including the presumption to appoint rites of worship, as well as selling indulgences, VII, 23), while the confessors defended their teaching that the true church is marked by the pure Word and the sacraments. (I note there the general principle of the authority of the Word over against the vesture of personal authority in the pope.)

    I’m not sure how that speaks against my statement that “The pastor speaks the Word of God with authority not because he is vested with authority, but because it is the Word of God that he speaks.” In fact, it is conceded in VII, 28, that those hypocrites who hold office in the visible church are still efficiacious in their ministry of Word and sacrament. That would seem rather to support my point, that “on account of the call of the Church, they represent the person of Christ, and do not represent their own persons . . . ‘he who hears you, hears me.’” (Even there, such vesture as there is resides in “the Church,” not the individual who is called.)

    I’m not sure I understand, yet, what you mean by “public office,” and what I am missing that you can see, but I’m listening. (I do flinch rather deeply at talk of pastor as “ruler,” though, so I may be fighting my presuppositions.) When you get the chance, tell me more specifically what you are looking at in AP VII.

    And The Lord be with you.

    (Doh! Now I’m just being provocative!)

  • Dan Kempin

    Fws, #41,

    I hesitate to respond because, once again, your comment is so deep as to require more time for thought than I am able to give. Since we haven’t tucked in for a while, though, I’ll give it a go. Forgive me if I am hasty.

    I did re-read article VII of the Apology, (and I bless you for encouraging me to go back to the confessions.) The discussion there was the distinction of the visible church and the true (unseen) church. The papists definition of church was defined, somewhat sardonically, as global and unquestioned authority of the pope in all things (including the presumption to appoint rites of worship, as well as selling indulgences, VII, 23), while the confessors defended their teaching that the true church is marked by the pure Word and the sacraments. (I note there the general principle of the authority of the Word over against the vesture of personal authority in the pope.)

    I’m not sure how that speaks against my statement that “The pastor speaks the Word of God with authority not because he is vested with authority, but because it is the Word of God that he speaks.” In fact, it is conceded in VII, 28, that those hypocrites who hold office in the visible church are still efficiacious in their ministry of Word and sacrament. That would seem rather to support my point, that “on account of the call of the Church, they represent the person of Christ, and do not represent their own persons . . . ‘he who hears you, hears me.’” (Even there, such vesture as there is resides in “the Church,” not the individual who is called.)

    I’m not sure I understand, yet, what you mean by “public office,” and what I am missing that you can see, but I’m listening. (I do flinch rather deeply at talk of pastor as “ruler,” though, so I may be fighting my presuppositions.) When you get the chance, tell me more specifically what you are looking at in AP VII.

    And The Lord be with you.

    (Doh! Now I’m just being provocative!)

  • Dan Kempin

    George, #42,

    “The call to the ministry is not the result of a “unique” kind of Spirit, but a gift given by the One Spirit, but not to every one. ”

    That is a great statement, and it covers the objection I had to Paul’s previous wording. The Spirit is not “present in a different way,” but he does present a particular gift. The office is the gift. the pastor has a particular responsibility and authority conveyed to him, personally, through the call of the Church and his willing acceptance. This is not to be shunted off as “the same for everybody,” because it is not. He serves the office and is to be honored as the man of God. (Learn from David when he says, “I will not raise my hand against the Lord’s annointed.”)

    Yet what he receives is not his own. He serves at the call of the congregation, not by direct, divine right, and the Word he is to proclaim and the gifts he is to administer are not from himself, neither from the church, but from the Lord of the Church.

  • Dan Kempin

    George, #42,

    “The call to the ministry is not the result of a “unique” kind of Spirit, but a gift given by the One Spirit, but not to every one. ”

    That is a great statement, and it covers the objection I had to Paul’s previous wording. The Spirit is not “present in a different way,” but he does present a particular gift. The office is the gift. the pastor has a particular responsibility and authority conveyed to him, personally, through the call of the Church and his willing acceptance. This is not to be shunted off as “the same for everybody,” because it is not. He serves the office and is to be honored as the man of God. (Learn from David when he says, “I will not raise my hand against the Lord’s annointed.”)

    Yet what he receives is not his own. He serves at the call of the congregation, not by direct, divine right, and the Word he is to proclaim and the gifts he is to administer are not from himself, neither from the church, but from the Lord of the Church.

  • fws

    Dan,
    I see the problem here as being the German. And the problem is not just that our translations are bad, it is that it is hard to aim for a literal word for word translation. This is true especially of the Apology. I have been trying for a long while now to translate the german and latin, and I end up with a product that looks too much like a paraphrase.

    It seems nearly impossible to get something that reads like someone who speaks english would write it and get an A+ in english composition class. If you know what I mean.

    I suspect that is why most of us focus on the FC. It presents itself more in a way a modern mind can more easily process.

    Now with that long preable I would suggest you do this:

    Where apology VII says things like “The Holy Catholic Church is not JUST a government like any other government” read this as The Holy Catholic Church IS a government just like any other government BUT…”

    See where I am going with this? You sorta need to read and parse carefully here. They are saying precisely what my rephrasing says aren’t they? The two statement are equivalent. But that would be an easy point to miss with the first rendering that is how our translations all render it, which is actually closer to the German, but is not how we would say it I suggest.

    And my run on sentences I blame on reading too much of our Confessions in German. Ha!

  • fws

    Dan,
    I see the problem here as being the German. And the problem is not just that our translations are bad, it is that it is hard to aim for a literal word for word translation. This is true especially of the Apology. I have been trying for a long while now to translate the german and latin, and I end up with a product that looks too much like a paraphrase.

    It seems nearly impossible to get something that reads like someone who speaks english would write it and get an A+ in english composition class. If you know what I mean.

    I suspect that is why most of us focus on the FC. It presents itself more in a way a modern mind can more easily process.

    Now with that long preable I would suggest you do this:

    Where apology VII says things like “The Holy Catholic Church is not JUST a government like any other government” read this as The Holy Catholic Church IS a government just like any other government BUT…”

    See where I am going with this? You sorta need to read and parse carefully here. They are saying precisely what my rephrasing says aren’t they? The two statement are equivalent. But that would be an easy point to miss with the first rendering that is how our translations all render it, which is actually closer to the German, but is not how we would say it I suggest.

    And my run on sentences I blame on reading too much of our Confessions in German. Ha!

  • fws

    dan @ 43

    I’m not sure I understand, yet, what you mean by “public office,” and what I am missing that you can see, but I’m listening. (I do flinch rather deeply at talk of pastor as “ruler,” though, so I may be fighting my presuppositions.)

    I mean by “office” precisely what we mean by “public office” in the political realm. For some odd reason civil society has managed to retain this important concept and the church has somehow lost it.

    Think of how the office of a judge, a policeman and a pastor are identical. they all possess (1) a delegated authority (2) that publicly identifies them and sets them apart (3) is for the purpose of conveying a law , and (4) the delegated authority is at the same time delimited and finds it’s very purpose in that law it administers.

    Then head over to the preface to the Small Catechism where the church is described as a village and doctrines are the city ordinances that all citizens of the village can be demanded to be familiar with , even though we cannot demand that anyone believes them.

    I would note evidence that Chemnitz understood things precisely in the way I suggest, in our Confessions by that fact that he felt perfectly fine with dictating that the women in his congretation must wear black with no jewelwry to take the Blessed Sacrament, and also felt no compunctions about quite strictly mandating that a common liturgy be used when he was the equivalent of a district president.
    about feeling queasy about pastor=ruler I say this:
    “one is your Master, even Christ, as regards the New Man in the Heavenly or Gospel Kingdom that is alone of invisible faith alone in Christ.

    Here in the Holy Catholic church that is an earthly Government we are dealing with the Believer strictly according to his Old Adam. And this then is where the pastor is to rule. And so St Paul, as a pastor, could order women not to cut their hair, his men to get circumcized, to follow jewish dietary laws, and for women to remain silent in the church. Why? All things are permissible but not all things are “useful” (1 cor 6) in serving others. So Old Adam, in order to be useful to others needs structure such as the Holy Liturgy, and also to conform to custom (st paul “it is not our custom/it is not natural”). And this is true unless some knuckle head confuses the outward forms and customs (again apology art VII) with the faith that is supposed to be “in, with and under ‘ those forms and customs.

    Please read the treatment found in the Apology Art III on the woman who was saved because she loved much. It illuminates all the rest of what the Apology has to say about how Good Works save us and how we cannnot be saved apart from Good Works. Those Good Works fully include administration of word and sacrament, sound doctrine, etc. “in, with and under” are the key words here. “synectoche ‘ is another.

  • fws

    dan @ 43

    I’m not sure I understand, yet, what you mean by “public office,” and what I am missing that you can see, but I’m listening. (I do flinch rather deeply at talk of pastor as “ruler,” though, so I may be fighting my presuppositions.)

    I mean by “office” precisely what we mean by “public office” in the political realm. For some odd reason civil society has managed to retain this important concept and the church has somehow lost it.

    Think of how the office of a judge, a policeman and a pastor are identical. they all possess (1) a delegated authority (2) that publicly identifies them and sets them apart (3) is for the purpose of conveying a law , and (4) the delegated authority is at the same time delimited and finds it’s very purpose in that law it administers.

    Then head over to the preface to the Small Catechism where the church is described as a village and doctrines are the city ordinances that all citizens of the village can be demanded to be familiar with , even though we cannot demand that anyone believes them.

    I would note evidence that Chemnitz understood things precisely in the way I suggest, in our Confessions by that fact that he felt perfectly fine with dictating that the women in his congretation must wear black with no jewelwry to take the Blessed Sacrament, and also felt no compunctions about quite strictly mandating that a common liturgy be used when he was the equivalent of a district president.
    about feeling queasy about pastor=ruler I say this:
    “one is your Master, even Christ, as regards the New Man in the Heavenly or Gospel Kingdom that is alone of invisible faith alone in Christ.

    Here in the Holy Catholic church that is an earthly Government we are dealing with the Believer strictly according to his Old Adam. And this then is where the pastor is to rule. And so St Paul, as a pastor, could order women not to cut their hair, his men to get circumcized, to follow jewish dietary laws, and for women to remain silent in the church. Why? All things are permissible but not all things are “useful” (1 cor 6) in serving others. So Old Adam, in order to be useful to others needs structure such as the Holy Liturgy, and also to conform to custom (st paul “it is not our custom/it is not natural”). And this is true unless some knuckle head confuses the outward forms and customs (again apology art VII) with the faith that is supposed to be “in, with and under ‘ those forms and customs.

    Please read the treatment found in the Apology Art III on the woman who was saved because she loved much. It illuminates all the rest of what the Apology has to say about how Good Works save us and how we cannnot be saved apart from Good Works. Those Good Works fully include administration of word and sacrament, sound doctrine, etc. “in, with and under” are the key words here. “synectoche ‘ is another.

  • fws

    To say “we cannot be saved apart from Good Works” in the precise context of the Apology art III is the exact equivalent of saying that the Holy Spirit always works faith through means.

    modern Lutherans restrict that word “means” to printed paper, bread , wine and water. This is wrong. The administrations of word and sacrament are Good Works done by sinful human hands.

    This means that God makes ALL Goodness and Mercy happen in ALL three articles by means of Good Works extorted out of Old Adam by the Law. This is the Kingdom of God in any form we can see.

    Then, “in, with and under” that Law work upon Old Adam that is ALL we can see and do, God brings his other Kingdom, that is alone of faith, in a way that cannot be seen.

  • fws

    To say “we cannot be saved apart from Good Works” in the precise context of the Apology art III is the exact equivalent of saying that the Holy Spirit always works faith through means.

    modern Lutherans restrict that word “means” to printed paper, bread , wine and water. This is wrong. The administrations of word and sacrament are Good Works done by sinful human hands.

    This means that God makes ALL Goodness and Mercy happen in ALL three articles by means of Good Works extorted out of Old Adam by the Law. This is the Kingdom of God in any form we can see.

    Then, “in, with and under” that Law work upon Old Adam that is ALL we can see and do, God brings his other Kingdom, that is alone of faith, in a way that cannot be seen.

  • BMS

    So, what do you think about a pastor responding to “and also with you” or “and with your spirit” with “Thank you my friends”? I find it distracting and believe it takes away from the meaning behind it…

  • BMS

    So, what do you think about a pastor responding to “and also with you” or “and with your spirit” with “Thank you my friends”? I find it distracting and believe it takes away from the meaning behind it…

  • sarah

    A priest’s job is to prepare our souls for Heaven…right? So when he say’s “Peace be with you” he means our spirits…because that’s what he directs every word he says towards. When we respond, it’s a little different. We give the gift of the priest’s sacrifice back in a small way by directing our prayers beyond his physical body…like he does for us…all the time.

  • sarah

    A priest’s job is to prepare our souls for Heaven…right? So when he say’s “Peace be with you” he means our spirits…because that’s what he directs every word he says towards. When we respond, it’s a little different. We give the gift of the priest’s sacrifice back in a small way by directing our prayers beyond his physical body…like he does for us…all the time.

  • sarah

    do the black, say the red. simple.

  • sarah

    do the black, say the red. simple.

  • fws

    sarah @ 49

    just dont forget sarah that God will have not just our spirit and soul but also our resurrected body with him in heaven! You are not a complete person without both your body and soul Sarah and you will be , completely, standing before him, in the blessed resurrection which will come at the end of the age or in the twinkling of an eye when you die and time and space no longer confine you.

  • fws

    sarah @ 49

    just dont forget sarah that God will have not just our spirit and soul but also our resurrected body with him in heaven! You are not a complete person without both your body and soul Sarah and you will be , completely, standing before him, in the blessed resurrection which will come at the end of the age or in the twinkling of an eye when you die and time and space no longer confine you.