Stuart DiNenno said:Since you quoted Scripture but did not explain your application of it, I suppose I will have to guess at what you meant. And my guess is that you believe these are "words of institution" that must be repeated whenever the Lord's Supper is practiced. But Paul never said that was the case, and it should not be made into some kind of incantation, although it certainly would not be wrong to repeat the words for instructional purposes since this is exactly what Paul was doing in repeating the words of Christ.
The words of institution should be repeated because Christ says, "This do." The Formula of Concord of the Evangelical Lutheran Church explains:
Quote
Now, in the administration of the Holy Supper the words of institution are to be publicly spoken or sung before the congregation distinctly and clearly, and should in no way be omitted [and this for very many and the most important reasons. First,] in order that obedience may be rendered to the command of Christ: This do [that therefore should not be omitted which Christ Himself did in the Holy Supper], and [secondly] that the faith of the hearers concerning the nature and fruit of this Sacrament (concerning the presence of the body and blood of Christ, concerning the forgiveness of sins, and all benefits which have been purchased by the death and shedding of the blood of Christ, and are bestowed upon us in Christ's testament) may be excited, strengthened, and confirmed by Christ's Word, and [besides] that the elements of bread and wine may be consecrated or blessed for this holy use, in order that the body and blood of Christ may therewith be administered to us to be eaten and to be drunk, as Paul declares [1 Cor. 10, 16]: The cup of blessing which we bless, which indeed occurs in no other way than through the repetition and recitation of the words of institution.
Quote
Stuart DiNenno said: No, I was not referring to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. I was referring to the notion that the sacraments become efficacious or only have validity when "administered" by an ordained elder. It seems to me that this doctrine effectively makes New Testament church officers into priestly mediators between God and men and I do not believe that it can be biblically supported. The elders are to oversee these functions but I believe it is an error to think of them as conduits through whom God's sacramental blessings must exclusively flow.
The validity of a sacrament does not depend on the person administering the sacrament but upon the words that are spoken and the promises attached to those words in scripture. However, scripture also teaches that ministers should administer the sacraments.
