Note: This article was originally in response to Fr. Evan Scamman’s article: “Should Elders Administer Holy Communion?” After discussing the issue, we are really almost in complete agreement, and Fr. Evan has clarified his article to reflect this. That said, the issue of lay-consecration ceased to be an exercise in theoreticals, or a historical matter concerning Pietistic conventicles of a former age, and became a real-world issue during the Pandemic - as laymen of both sexes were saying the Words of Institution over bread and wine at their kitchen tables. I disagree with such practices, as does Fr. Evan. ~ Ed.

One argument for the validity of lay consecration is that it is not by virtue of the man speaking the words, but the words of Jesus, that make the sacrament a sacrament. And this is true. These are not the pastor’s words, but Christ’s words. The pastor’s “virtue” is not what consecrates the elements, but Christ, by means of His Word.

And that’s the issue: Christ’s words. Because I agree with Christ’s institution, I disagree with lay “consecration.”

For our Lord Jesus Christ also spoke efficacious words granting authority to the apostles:

Jesus delegates Word and Sacrament authority to the apostles (the sent ones) through the Holy Spirit - given to them bodily and liturgically as they are put into the Office of the Holy Ministry. Yes, He gives the keys to the whole church, but He specifically "sends” them as His ministers acting under His delegated authority to use the keys by means of His Word. This does not mean that everyone is sent. All of our Lord’s followers were disciples (students), but not all were apostles (the sent ones). And Jesus is still sending certain men with the authority to preach and administer sacraments. Indeed, we are men under authority.

Moreover, the prophet Jeremiah spoke of God’s disapproval of those who prophesied without being "sent”:

Our Lord did not simply create a universal ministerium, sending and authorizing all to speak and act in His name. Instead, the Lord has ministers - called and ordained servants of the Word - who have authority to speak for the King (who is the Word). Even in the temporal world, kings have ministers with authority to speak on behalf of their sovereign. They are put into this office by the king. Not every citizen has the authority to represent and speak for the king. In fact, it is a crime to portray oneself in this way: seeking to establish royal policy without a royal grant of authority. It is usurpation.

Even in a republic, we have the same kind of thing. If a bill is passed by both houses of Congress, it must be signed by the president to be enacted into law. A random citizen - or even an employee of the president - may not sign it and enact it, even if it is done with great ceremony, and even if the right words are used. Such an act is null and void without the proper wielding of authority. Similarly, an ambassador represents the country, and can speak on behalf of the nation. This is not by virtue of some kind of metaphysical powers enjoyed by the ambassador, but rather because he has the authority of office, being placed into that office by one with authority to do so. A civilian - no matter how patriotic, smart, or capable - simply lacks the authority to speak on behalf of the government.

Some post-Enlightenment radical groups - such as the Quakers - confess that all believers have equal authority. They deny the existence of office and hierarchy, but rather adopt a leveling worldview of creation and church. And thus, they were among the first to claim to have women preachers. For they too can functionally say all the right words.

This idea that anyone speaking the right words over bread and wine is delivering the Sacrament of the Altar is partially behind the belief in women’s “ordination.” For if it isn’t dependent upon the authority of office, then lady “pastors” are truly forgiving sins and distributing the Lord’s body and blood just by speaking the right words. And if they are keeping people out of hell and delivering salvation, why should we discourage them? The Rev. Dr. David Scaer wrote a paper on this topic that is worth a read: “The Validity of the Churchly Acts of Ordained Women.” He was falsely accused of Donatism by some of the St. Louis faculty, and was defended by Drs. Weinrich and Wenthe (pp. 209-212).

There is a history of this kind of functional view of ministry and sacraments in the Wisconsin Synod (such as having elders of school principals “consecrate” the elements in the absence of the pastor). A few years ago, a group of WELS ladies on a retreat decided to “consecrate” the elements and have the “Lord’s Supper.” At that time, WELS authorities took the tack that they did indeed have the Lord’s Supper, but they shouldn’t do it - especially if men are present (!). But we do not see such things among the apostles, the early church, the medieval church, the Reformation church, nor at any time among any of the historic communions until recent history among a minority of outliers. Indeed, St. Paul speaks of the grant of the Holy Spirit to St. Timothy through the laying on of hands by the presbyters. This is how the apostolic authority, the original grant of the Holy Spirit and “sending” by Jesus, was transmitted and carried out mediately by those (like Sts. Timothy and Titus) who rightfully bore our Lord’s authority. This is why we have an Office of the Holy Ministry.

Simon the Magician coveted this authority, and lacking it, thought he could purchase it. And even medieval sorcerers and devil worshipers knew that they too lacked the authority necessary for the Eucharist, which could not be conjured just by saying the right words over the elements. When they sought the body of Christ in order to desecrate it, they did not simply say the right words over bread, but had to find ways to steal properly consecrated wafers. The belief that simply saying the right words over the elements confects the sacrament is called “ex opere operato” - Latin for “by the work of the work.” Our confessions deny ex opere operato in more than sixty citations. This is why children playing church or actors on a stage are not leaving behind consecrated elements - even if they say the Words of Institution correctly. There is no danger of consecration if your parrot repeats the verba with a loaf of bread on the table.

A crass example of ex opere operato in the real world is found in an anecdote told to me by a coworker many years ago. His father worked in a slaughterhouse. And to certify meat as kosher or hallal, a rabbi or imam had to say certain prayers. To save money, the slaughterhouse laid off the clerics and replaced them with a tape recorder.

We do not treat the Sacrament of the Altar like this. Hoc est Corpus Meum is not hocus-pocus.

And this is why it is so terrible when laymen “consecrate” (such as a lady musician). This is why it is so terrible when different elements are substituted. This is why it is so terrible when pastors change the Words of Institution. They are acting without Dominical authority, and it is not the Lord’s Supper that they celebrate. They are saying something that is not true, and acting outside of the Word of Christ. St. Paul himself tells the Corinthians that their abuse in practice nullifies the Lord’s Supper. For the sake of the integrity of Word and Sacrament, our leaders must use their authority to not only condemn this practice, but discipline those who do it. Otherwise, it’s just a legalistic technicality, one well worth overlooking for the sake of the Gospel and the blessings that come from our Lord’s saving Presence with us in Word and Sacrament.

Fr. Evan’s main point is that the pastor is given the vocation of stewardship of the Supper. And even if one were to believe that a layman has the theoretical ability to consecrate the bread and the wine, it is outside of our Lord’s institution of the pastoral office as the steward of the mysteries. And for that reason, it simply ought never to be done.