On Reserving the Elements of Holy Communion
There has been a bit of a buzz across the Lutheran Blogosphere with the [thankfully few] pastors who are committed to insisting that the bread and wine that remains after the Divine Service, remain perpetually the body and blood of Christ. One chap delivered himself of the opinion that in spite of what Luther and Chemnitz has to say on the practice, and what our Confessions have to say about it, it is not what they say that counts here, but what they don’t say that really matters. This strange argument from silence, shaky as it is, is being put forward as a legitimate reason to reserve the elements after the Sacrament, regarding them perpetually to be the body and blood of Christ. Here is my response to these latest musings.
I’m really quite puzzled why men who have pledged themselves to the Lutheran Confessions, who have read how Martin Luther is appealed to as the “chief teacher of the churches of the Augsburg Confession,” and whose writings on the Lord’s Supper are specifically held up in the vein of: “For more on this, read Luther” in the Confessions, can, in my opinion, be so dismissive of Luther’s position. The “lost Luther reference” has been returned to an English edition of the BOC, adding even more weight to the position of our chief teacher on these matters.
The entire freight/weight of the issue as addressed in the Confessions stands firmly against reservation, for any reason. Further, an argument constructed to support reservation based on the silence of our Confessions is even more difficult for me to understand.
Why can we not agree that we should consume what has been consecrated, as our Lord would have us do? Even if we are not of the same mind about what it may be after the Divine Service is over, we can say without any doubt what it is in the action and proper use of the Supper, as the Formula makes abundantly clear.
Dismissing Dr. Ziegler’s excellent study is unfortunate. Some, sadly, describe what I can only describe as disdain for Lutheran fathers and traditions. They are permitting, in my view, a romanticized view of the Early Church to trump the proper teachings and traditions and opinions of our Lutheran fathers, who are more than worthy of our respect and honor. It is as if the first five hundred year of writings, good as they might be, are far superior to our own Lutheran fathers and their teachings.
Martin Luther and our fathers all agree that we are to consume what is consecrated. If we do happen to have consecrated elements left [something that apparently, just as our fathers warn, leads to foolish questions and useless speculations], we should treat them with great reverence and respect. But when we commune the sick and shut-in, I believe it is very poor pastoral practice not to consecrate the elements and speak the Word of our Lord, a consecrating Word, in their hearing. Let them hear the Lord saying into their years, “This is my body…this is my blood…for you.” A conditional consecration, or a mere assurance of consecration, is most unfortunate, along the lines of an assurance of absolution, rather than the absolving words themselves.
I particularly am troubled by the patronizing attitude, as I perceive it, and forgive me if I misunderstand this, when I hear pastors say that they repeat the Verba, “for the communicants faith.” In other words, what I’m hearing them to say is, “Of course I the pastor know what this is, but for the benefit of the weak in faith, who seem to have a need to hear the Verba repeated, I say them.” This is an attitude that is contrary to our Confessions, which make it very clear that there is never to be a celebration without the Verba.
If in fact the Verba are repeated, not by way of assurance, or along the lines of, “We said this on Sunday” but as they are from our Lord, then I suppose this is, in the final analysis a moot point, since, despite what the pastor’s speculation might be, the fact is that the communicant has the sure and certain promise of their Lord, whose words have just been put into their ears, and that Word creates, and gives, what it says. Therefore, pastoral speculations aside, there is a consecration and our Lord’s Word of Promise and Institution are being said and the body and blood of Christ are under the bread and wine.
So, finally, if some pastors insist on regarding the bread and wine after the benediction in the Divine Service to be the body and blood of Christ and do not shut it up, reverence it, adore it, pray to it and otherwise misuse it, but distribute it to the sick and shut-in, saying the Words of Institution as declaration and promise, not as mere assurance, or “for those whose faith require it,” then we should not be too opposed to their opinions about the bread and wine that remain after a celebration of the Lord’s Supper, as long as they remain just that: private opinions and speculations. And as long as they speak the word of our Lord as they are to be spoken: consecrating and instituting words of promise, declarations, not mere assurances.
Nobody should dispute the fact that any elements left after everyone has communed should be treated with “great reverence and respect.” But to consume everything that has been left “as our Lord would have us do?” Are we to assume that on Maundy Thursday, every piece and crumb of bread and every drop of wine in the Upper Room was “consecrated”, and that our Lord instructed the disciples to finish it all? There is no doubt that our confessional writings instruct us to be sure everything is consumed. But is it possible, without denying the real presence,or believing in “receptionism,” that our Lord did something other than what we now think we understand as “consecration?” If you ask me, “did what?” – frankly I don’t know. But then I don’t know everything that our Lord is capable of doing.
McCain: My mind can’t wrap itself around all the possible questions and speculations possible here, on any side of this issue. I prefer simply to do what Jesus said to do: Take and eat.
Lutherans do not make stuff up. We read with discernment and obey.
“Take and eat”, not “take and worship in a box”, nor “take and parade around then eat”, nor “take, eat, store for 72 hours and eat again.”
I honestly think that it is possible to be too clever and contemplative… especially in areas where God, in His infinite wisdom, has chosen to remain silent. Reason is the enemy of faith.
Wasn’t the Last Supper was celebrated in the manner of the Passover? If so, wasn’t the requirement of the Passover be that nothing was left un-consumed?
If so, then it would only be logical that Christ, having mandated His people to celebrate the Passover, would celebrate it perfectly Himself.
I had not heard of those who, in “reserving” the sacrament, neglected the Verba at the subsequent services/distributions. In my practice of “reserving” the elements, it is solely for the purpose of assuring that those elements that have set aside for us to “eat and drink” in the sacrament are indeed returned to the altar for their proper use. Our Lord does not put a stopwatch on the Sacrament – “This is my Body until the Benediction is spoken in the service.” It is a misuse, or dare I even say abuse, to take that which is set aside for use in the Sacrament and use it in some other manner – like rinsing it down the sink, throwing it out in the trash, or taking it home to eat with a little butter and jam at Sunday dinner (all of which I have heard tell were practiced at various congregations I have visited). What has been set aside to be eaten and drunk is to be eaten and drunk – so we set it aside in a separate vessel to make sure that this portion is placed on the altar at the next Divine Service to be used for that purpose for which it has been set aside and consecrated. But its return to the altar is NEVER sans the declaration of the Verba! Its declaration and connection with these particular elements should always be done in the hearing of the communicant.
(Which makes me think, if you had to get up and leave the sanctuary for a time (perhaps to attend to an unruly child or to visit the “necessary room”) and were absent during the proclamation of the Verba, would it be better for you to refrain from reception and visit the pastor after the service? No assertion one way or the other, just a random thought that came through my head as I’m typing this.)
Something in Dr. Ziegler’s article, about taking the elements directly from the altar to the sick and shut in during the service, reminded me of something I had pondered several years ago, given the modern tools of technology that are at our disposal. Our congregation broadcasts its service over the radio, so those sick and shut-in can be listening to the service, including the proclamation of the Verba, and worshiping with the congregation though divided by some distance. I had considered having some distribution assistants commune in the first table, then take some of the elements from the altar to distribute to those sick and shut-ins who were listening to the service. While there was some appeal in the “psychology” of “including” them in this way in the Sunday worship, I ultimately decided it was going to be a cop-out on better pastoral care, so it never even progressed to discussing it with others. – Just another somewhat random thought.
With regard to those who have given previously consecrated elements without the words of Christ: It amazes me sometimes how easily we pastors sometimes overlook the very catechism we teach. “These words ‘Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,’ show us that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation, are given us THROUGH THESE WORDS…” and “Certainly not just eating and drinking do these things, BUT THE WORDS written here: ‘Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.’ THESE WORDS, along with the bodily eating and drinking ARE THE MAIN THING in the sacrament. Whoever BELIEVES THESE WORDS has exactly what they say: ‘forgiveness of sins.’
I wish I could provide you with the reference, but when Luther was facing excommunication, he wrote that one who was unjustly excommunicated still received the benefit of the sacrament if they trusted Christ’s Word that the body and blood were given and shed for him, even though he was prevented from receiving them. (Perhaps someone with the electronic edition can locate it and append it.)
The point being that offering even previously consecrated bread and wine without the words of Christ should be unthinkable.
Further, they are spoken as much for the hearer as for the elements. That’s the ‘FOR YOU’ and that is why the Lutherans don’t whisper them, as was commonly done before the Reformation. The words of Christ create and strengthen the requisite faith in the sacrament. Word and elements, faith and reception all belong together.