More on Reservation: The Lost Luther Reference
With apologies to many of my blog site’s readers, for whom the following will be perceived as far too much “insider” debate, I feel I must continue to address some serious mistakes and errors in opinions being expressed by men whom I admire and respect and count as friends. But I believe they are, and remain, on this issue, wrong. I’ve broken this post down into an extended entry so as not to over-burden my readers who choose simply to ignore this post.
There is a lively discussion underway across several blogs on the question of what the left-over bread and wine are when the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is concluded. There are some unfortunate accusations being made that those who do not regard the consecrated bread and wine that remain to be the body and blood of Christ are receptionists. They are missing a very important distinction. Melanchthon and his followers were trying to fix the moment of the presence of Christ to a definite point within the action of the celebration of the Lord’s Supper to the moment when bread and wine passed the lips of the communicants. This is “receptionism.” For more on this distinction and these details see this excellent summary of the issues.
Let me try to make my case, without rancor or ill will. I intend
neither, though I must confess my weak flesh gets the better of me and
I get frustrated by these conversations. And I apologize for letting
these frustrations show too much in my words.
I realize that I am not being sufficiently clear.
My point on the question of the reservation of the elements at the conclusion of the Divine Service [the Mass, if you will] is that the Formula of Concord appeals frequently to
Martin Luther as the chief teacher of the churches of the Augsburg
Confession. They do so explicitly and most firmly in the doctrinal article on the
Lord’s Supper [FC SD VII] where they basically say: “These are the main points, but
for more information, for fuller details, see Luther’s writings on the
Supper.”
But there is more, there is in the Formula a direct reference to a key
document by Luther, the so-called Wolferinus conference, it has been
called by Pastor Teigen, the “lost Luther reference” because it is
omitted in most modern editions of the BoC. And where does this reference appear? Precisely where our Confessions set forth the principle/axiom that apart from the intended, instituted use, there is no Sacrament, the so-called “nihil” rule, from the Latin: nihil, or “nothing.” The phrase is: “Nothing has the character of a sacrament apart from those instituted by Christ, or apart form the divinely instituted action” [FC VII.85]. The Formula appeals directly to Luther.
Please let us not suggest, or think, that Luther’s writing and teachings on the Supper, and particularly what he has to say on these very issues, have little or no bearing on these questions. Luther’s writings on these issues are not in any way to be regarded as merely personal opinion. No, not at all. They were, by the Formula itself, elevated to confessional status. In fact, they have everything to do with this issue.
It is precisely in this discussion in FC SD VII that there is a reference to Luther’s Works. Now, here is where it gets really interesting. In modern English editions of the Formula, because they rely on the BKS [sadly, far, far too much!], you do not see the most interesting reference for our purposes. I’m pleased to report that in the Concordia edition the reference has been restored, reflecting the German 1580 edition, the authoritative first-edition of the Formula. The reference that is “lost” (but now found) appears in SD VII.87,
which points the reader for more information on the nihil rule by stating it and then saying we hold to this rule “as Luther has explained it.” The BKS incorrectly points the reader to WA 30,11,254,255;
cf. Smalcald Articles, Pt. III, Article XV, 4. This is simply, and plainly, wrong. There is nothing here to be found about the
instituted use or what, precisely, Luther meant by the actio in the
famous “nihil” rule. K/W gets it right, and cites the letter by Luther referred to here.
A careful look at the original form of the Formula, the German,
says that we are to look to the Jena edition of Luther’s Works, that
famous edition put together by the Gnesio-Lutherans, under the sponsorship of his Electoral Grace, Duke Johann Friedrich the
Magnanimous (my personal favorite Lutheran hero of the Reformation).
What is to be found in the Jena edition when we look there, in volume
IV? That’s a tough one, because the critical edition of the BKS, gives
us no idea where to look in any modern edition of Luther’s works for
this obscure reference. When one goes to the Jena edition, and looks in Volume IV, what does one find? [I've seen this with my own eyes, in the Jena edition in the rare book holdings of Concordia Theological Seminary, how I came to find it, I'll explain at the end of this post].
Aha! It is none other than the the famous Wolferinus correspondence! I’ll reproduce it below, then note the point that I believe applies directly to our conversation,
since this clearly is correspondence the Formula is pointing us to “for
more information/more details/if you want to understand what we mean
and believe, here you go” Please read this carefully:
The fourth volume of the Jena edition volume contains the Latin writings of Luther from 1538 to 1547.
Here, folio pages 585 and following are obviously the reference to
which the SD VII.87 directs us. It is Luther’s second letter to
Wolferinus, 20 July 1543:
Grace and peace,
Indeed, why should I not have been disturbed and saddened, my dear
Simon Wolferinus, when I saw you two, living together in one town and
the ministers of one church, agreeing completely in doctrine, but
carrying on between yourselves with such a bitter spirit, because of a
matter which you have neither examined closely enough, and which is not
that important if it were examined more closely? Look at these
propositions of yours, and see whether or not such a terrible outcry is
in keeping with charity and brotherly love. I see that Satan is
tempting you, by making a beam out of a splinter, or rather a fire out
of a spark. You could have solved this by a meeting between the two of
you, since it is not a matter of being against the madness of the
papists, but against a colleague of yours in the ministry and in
religion.
Indeed Dr. Philip wrote rightly that there is no sacrament outside
of the sacramental action; but you are ending the sacramental action
much too hastily and abruptly. If you do it in this way, you will
appear to have absolutely no sacrament. For if such a quick breaking
off of the action really exists, it will follow that after the speaking
of the Words [of institution], which is the most powerful and principle
action in the sacrament, no one would receive the body and blood of
Christ, because the action would have ceased. Certainly Dr. Philip does
not want that. But such a decision of the action would bring about
inti scruples of conscience and endless questions, such as are
disputed among the papists, as, for example, whether the body and blood
of Christ are present at the first, middle, or last syllable.
Therefore, one must look not only upon this movement of instant or
present action but also on the time. Not in terms of mathematical but
of physical breadth, that is, one must give this action a certain
period of time, in a period of appropriate breadth of time, as they
say, “in breadth.”
Therefore, we shall define the time of the sacramental action in
this way: that it starts with the beginning the Our Father and lasts
until all have communicated, have emptied chalice, have consumed the
hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left
the altar. In this way we shall be safe and free from the scruples and
scandals of such endless questions. Dr. Philip defines the sacramental
action in relation to what is outside it, that is, against reservation
of and processions with the sacrament. He does not split it up within
[the action] itself, nor does he define it in a way that it contradicts
itself. Therefore see to it that if anything is left over of the
sacrament, either some communicants or the priest himself and his
assistant receive it, so that it is not only a curate or someone else
who drinks what is left over in the chalice, but that he gives it to
the others who were also participants in the body [of Christ], so that
you do not appear to divide the sacrament by a bad example or to treat
the sacramental action irreverently. This is my opinion and I know that
it is also Philip’s opinion too.7
Now….dear friends, please note what our Dr. Luther, our chief
teacher and father in Christ as Lutherans, has to say, the man to whom
our Confessions make explicit appeal in the Formula, at this very point.
<i>Therefore, we shall define the time of the sacramental action
in this way: that it starts with the beginning the Our Father and lasts
until all have communicated, have emptied chalice, have consumed the
hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left
the altar. In this way we shall be safe and free from the scruples and
scandals of such endless questions./<i>
My appeal therefore is that we heed Dr. Luther and let this resolve these questions. There is no good reason to follow any other practice.
I hope this helps to clarify my position on this question and why I believe what I do.
Those who still choose to label my position as “receptionism” must also
so label Dr. Luther a receptionist, and must choose to ignore what the
Confessions say about his position in this matter: it is not merely his
opinion, it is explicitly cited as part and parcel of the Formula of
Concord.
I commend to you all Pastor Teigen’s excellent research on this lost
reference.
Now a bit of personal background on why I’ve always found these issues fascinating, and important:
I exhaustively researched these issues and
questions myself when I was at the seminary during my graduate studies. We were in the thick of the
debate on this issue for Dr. Teigen’s excellent book on the meaning of the consecration. The WELS had tried to force small Lutheran churches under its control to renounce anything that appeared to teach that the Words of Institution are what bring into effect the Real Presence [which, by the way, is precisely what the Scriptures and the Confessions teach!]. Dr. J.A.O. Preus brutally attacked Dr. Teigen
for his research on the moment of the real presence, and Dr. Eugene Klug had
joined him on the warpath. Rev. Dr. John Stephenson had entered the fray on Dr.
Teigen’s side, eliciting from JAO Preus a scathing attack. Stephenson, you see, as a newcomer to The LCMS, broke a cardinal unspoken rule, “Thou shalt never take strong public issue with what another LCMS seminary professor has said or written!” He had gone after Klug who had attacked Teigen’s book. This in turn precipitated an attack by JAO who, frankly, badly botched a review of Teigen’s book. His brother Robert, on these points a much better scholar and student of the Confessions than his brother, JAO, sided with Teigen.
[That rule, by the way, still holds true to this day: note, for example, the appalling lack of critical review of the K/W edition of the BOC. Professor Roland Ziegler is the most recent transgressor of the rule, with a strongly worded, and very correctly recounted, criticism of K/W — for swapping into the BOC a text of the Apology that was explicitly rejected for inclusion in the BOC by its editors. But I digress.]
At any rate, I just
happened to be around at the time of this controversy and did a lot of research on this as an assistant to Dr. Robert Preus in the Systematics department. I was sent to the rare book room to verify and confirm Dr. Teigen’s assertions about the Jena edition. Dr. Teigen was quite entirely correct. Where Klug had gone wrong was in trying to defend the weak position held by Pieper, and before him by Walther, who in turn had unfortunately depended too much on Quenstedt and Gerhard, rather than returning to Luther and Chemnitz, as Dr. Teigen had done.
So, I am not without some background on the intricacies of these details and discussions. It is unwise for pastors, and I’ve noticed lately it is younger pastors doing this more than most, to label positions “receptionist” when it is painfully obvious that they themselves have done little, or no, research on these matters, but are merely repeating the positions of certain highly-liturgical pastors, like my friend Pr. David Petersen and others. While I respect these men, and do not wish in any way to disparage their ministry, they are not correct on these and other liturgical issues. I shall not, as they often do, attempt to explain their positions through rather odd psychoanalyzing of their person and their work.
There have been several decades of debate and intense research and
discussion on these issues in our circles, crossing Synodical lines, and
it would be incorrect to assume it is only in the past ten or twenty
years that there has been serious attention given to all these
questions and issues.
I’m particularly tantalized by what Dr. Teigen found when researching this issue as well in his excellent article:
This letter of Luther to Wolferinus gives the definition of the time or
the action of the Lord’s Supper. The writer examined volume four of the
Latin Jena edition (published in 1583) in the rare book room of
Concordia Theological Seminary Library, Fort Wayne. The temptation was
strong to pursue a side-trail to discover the provenance of this
particular volume, because the words that are underlined in the
translation above were heavily underlined in the Latin text with a
large “N.B.” written on the margin. The pages were otherwise free from
markings. Some theologian, apparently several hundred years ago, had
caught the significance of this definition of the time or the action as set
forth by Luther and referred to in SD VII.87.
Indeed, Dr. Teigen. I’ve seen that same volume and noted the remarkable underlining. My question to my friends and gentlemen opponents on this particular issue is simply this: have you caught the significant of this definition of the time and action as set forth by Luther and referred to in SD VII.87? In my respectful opinion, some have not. But I hope and pray that they do and thus free us from what amounts to endless, useless, fruitless and even harmful speculations and questions that do not edify, but only tend to divide and distract us from our Lord’s Most Holy and Venerable Supper!
I’ve found the debate edifying. The positive thing I pull from it is that you guys have to agree on some pretty basic things in order to even have this discussion: the Real Presence, given and shed for us for the forgiveness of sins. If only all Christians could get that far.
McCain: Yes, Dan, that is a very perceptive remark. Nobody is accusing anyone else of heresy or false doctrine, or teaching that Christ’s body and blood is not actually and truly present under the bread and wine of the Blessed Sacrament, given into the mouth of all who communion. Thanks for reminding us of this and praise God for this fact.
[cross posted from Cyberstones]
FC SD VII.87
Quote:
And apart from this use, when in the papistic mass the bread is not distributed, but offered up or enclosed, borne about, and exhibited for adoration, it is to be regarded as no sacrament; just as the water of baptism, when used to consecrate bells or to cure leprosy, or otherwise exhibited for worship, is no sacrament or baptism. For against such papistic abuses this rule has been set up at the beginning [of the reviving Gospel], and has been explained by Dr. Luther himself, Tom. IV, Jena.
That’s the Nihil Rule: “Apart from its use, when in the Papistic Mass…”
The Nihil Rule, therefore, as written in the FC simply does not give guidance on the question we are proposing to answer, namely: when a valid Lord’s Supper according to His Institution is celebrated in a Lutheran Church, and five hosts are not consumed but rather set aside in a pyx after the service for distribution on Monday to the shutins, do they somehow cease to be the “body of Christ…under the bread…instituted by Christ himself for us Christians to eat”?
Nor does Luther’s comment that this practice should not happen answer this question. Revs. McCain, Petersen, Curtis, Luther all agree that this is a weak practice best avoided. But that does not answer the question about what is happening when this weak practice is followed contrary to our, no doubt, sage advice.
So why ask the question? 1. The practice does in fact happen even if we don’t like it. 2. As with other seemingly tangential questions, how one answers can say quite a bit about one’s overall theology.
So we have three positions:
A) Receptionism. The bread is not actually the body of Christ unless and until and only so long as it is received in the mouth of the communicant. Since this is the case, of course anything not consumed is not the body and blood of Christ: it never way to begin with because it wasn’t consumed.
I don’t think anyone on this blog has advocated this position – even though it is undoubtedly the teaching of Pieper and the early Missouri Synod through to the mid-20th century (See Christian Dogmatics III.372-373 and Koehler’s A Summary of Christian Doctrine p. 219). Pieper, the Synod, and all these resources printed and reprinted by CPH are simply wrong: I’m glad we all agree on that. And, judging from my own experience in seminary and from that of my father-in-law (a fellow who stuck around during the walk out and then graduated in ’77), I’m glad that the systematics faculty (at least at St. Louis, and at least the majority of that faculty) has been teaching the same for two generations now.
B) Consecrationism and Endurance: Christ meant what he said: This is my body, this is my blood, and he meant it right then. Prooftext: Matthew 26:27-28 “All of you drink of it FOR (gar) this is my blood.” The reason Christ gives for us drinking it, is that it already is his blood. Further, Christ didn’t say, This is my blood until you are done drinking it and anything left over stops being my blood. So in the absence of such a command, the holders of this position (myself included) would hold that “This is my body” keeps right on being true – even if someone follows the weak practice of reserving the consecrated host for distribution to shut ins during the week.
C) Consecrationism and Deconsecrationism. I’m trying to come up with a descriptive nomenclature for Rev. McCain’s position – which I have not encountered with any other theologian. This is probably why many folks have wrongly understood him to be advocating receptionism: for receptionists regularly say that what is not consumed after the Supper is not the Lord’s Body and Blood. Rev. McCain also says that. But he also says that it was the body at blood at the consecration. Or, more linearly: When Jesus says, This is my Body, This is my Blood, it really is, right then. Then, when all have had as much as they are going to eat, and five hosts are left over, but no one eats them, and everybody leaves, and the service is over, they are, in reality, deconsecrated: no longer the body and blood of Christ.
Have I understood your position correctly, Rev. McCain? If so, I simply fail to find evidence for it in the Scriptures and would be interested in seeing what Biblical proof you would bring forward.
All the best,
+HRC
PS: Dear brother, I must say, I got a chuckle about this:
Quote:
I intend to change that comment in the Altar Guild Manual in its next printing.
Party foul! You can’t change the rules as you go. . . Indeed, our fathers saw you coming. The TLH General Rubrics state,
“On and after Easter Day, 1955, in any case of a contradiction between these General Rubrics as they are here printed and other rubrics published elsewhere in the official service books of the Evangelical Lutheran Synodical Conference of North America, these General Rubrics shall govern.”
Now, the Synodical Conference is, of course, defunct – so I guess we can keep on changing the rules. And, indeed, it was kind of silly of them to go for such an eternal-canon-law approach – but it goes to show that the notions of uniformity and improvement simply cannot go together.
But still, its worth noting that one of the Rubrics deemed worthy of eternal honor by the Synodical Conference was: “when the Service has been completed, the celebrant or a deacon shall remove the sacramental vessels from the altar to the sacristy and dispose of that part of the bread and wine which remains as follows: He shall carefully remove the bread from the paten and ciborium to a fit receptacle, there to be kept against the next Communion. He shall pour what remains of the consecrated wine into the piscina or upon the ground at a proper and convenient place outside the Church.”
If we want to argue that such a practice is a bad practice, I’m afraid we’re going to have to argue for it – not simply edit it out and insist that others follow us because it comes with the imprimatur of Synod – otherwise, wouldn’t we all have to be receptionists? – +HRC
—————————————–
[[McCain: Thanks for your comments. I am still thinking that you are gliding over the force of Luther's words in the Wolferinus correspondence, which are elevated by our Confessions to the status of doctrinal assertions on these points, but you state your position well, thanks.
Re. Altar Guild. I just consulted with CoW staff and they confirmed that I already knew: a manual for the Altar Guild is in no way to be regarded as being akin to, or part of, the church's formally adopted hymnal and agenda, nor can it be appealed to as some sort of formal set of rubrics to be placed on part with the Altar Book.
As for the errors in the text: The statement in the Altar Guild is an error and I appreciate people drawing my attention to the error in wording. We will be addressing this error.
Finally, Pr. Curtis, please note your final quote does not support your contention that what remains is the body of Christ. It does however support entirely what we all agree on: IF, we are not consuming what is consecrated in the midst of the Divine Service, then we should treat what remains, the earthly elements, with the respect, reverence and care they deserve: since they have been host to our Lord's body. I know we all agree on that, and we can all be thankful for that.
Again, thanks for your remarks.]]
How am I gilding over their force? Those words of Luther say that the union continues until “the chalice is emptied and the hosts are consumed.” That’s what is says, right?
It seems to me, that your position militates against this – for you say that the Presence ends before the chalice is emptied and the hosts are consumed.
So I’ll stick to Luther’s wording: the presence continues until the chalice is emptied and the hosts consumed.
The following quotations from a very detailed article by Timothy J. Wengert on the topic (especially the second quote) should put the matter of just what Luther thought to rest:
Luther and Melanchthon on Consecrated Communion Wine
(Eisleben 1542-43) [HRC: that is, the Wolferinus controversy]
by Timothy J. Wengert.
LQ XV(2001):24-42
p. 31
“In one (from 1541) Luther threw up his hands and
said,‘‘If I were to see the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove comingfrom heaven, as did the Holy Baptizer of Christ [John], I would fall on my knees, lift my hands and say, ‘Holy Spirit, have mercy upon me!’ Should I not do the same at the holy Sacrament, where Christ is present?’’ In a handwritten note to Hachenburg, Luther stated,‘‘Adoration in consuming the elements takes place as a matter of course [per sese], because with bended knees the true bodyand blood are consumed without question.’’ Luther also told Hachenburghe supported there institution of the elevation (against the Zwinglians). Finally, Hachenburg recounted a story from1542 [an eyewitness corrected the date in the margin to 1544], when a woman communing from one of the choir stalls at St.
Mary’s in Wittenberg bumped the chalice too hard, spilling some
wine on her lined leather jacket and on the wooden stall. Luther,
who was nearby, immediately came (with tears in his eyes) along
with John Bugenhagen and a deacon and proceeded to lick up the
spilled wine. After the service they retrieved the soiled jacket and cut out the stains, had the stall itself planed, and burned the scrap of cloth and the shavings.”
“Actually, Luther had had another occasion to comment on the
matter (although Clemen’s connection specifically to Wolferinus
is questionable—Conrad Cordatus, later pastor in Eisleben, had
posed the question and was interested in the situation in Brandenburg). Some time between 19 October and 5 November 1540,
Luther said at table, ‘‘There are some who let the Supper be a
sacrament only while it is in use. Whatever remains leftover they
throw away [a reference to the practice in places like Leipzig?]…. One must not make it so precise: four or five steps or even several hours. . ..Whether one or two hours has passed and a person takes it from one altar to another or carries it across the street, it nevertheless remains the body of Christ.’’ (WA TR,no.5314 (LW 54: 407–08).See the literature cited in LW on this point. In all these cases, Luther had in mind sacramental use with the sick or homebound, not processions.)”
So I think it is quite clear that I, Petersen, and others, are following Luther’s thought: if everyone leaves the church, hours pass, and we take the elements to someone else for distribution, they remain the Body and Blood of Christ.
See the article by Wengert in full for an explanation of how receptionism flows out of Melanchthon’s very different ideas as contained in the Variata of 1540 and pressed by him throughout his later life.
All the best,
+HRC
———————————-
McCain response to Pr. Curtis:
Yes, within the instituted use, during the actio of the Lord’s Supper, our dear Luther did that. And such reverence is entirely appropriate. One might wonder how far such would go. Do we chip out the flooring that has been touched by the spilled blood? Luther did what he believed appropriate to reverence the spilled blood and to do what Jesus said: consume it, receive it. Afterwards, they did what they felt best to respect what was there when the spill occurred.
A citation of the Table Talk is shaky, at best, as Luther scholars will tell us. Are those words cited specifically in the Formula as doctrinally binding definition of the nihhil rule? I do not believe they are, therefore here we have only a [possible] opinion by Luther, and as Pr. Weedon has recently reminded us via Krauth such opinions are not binding and of no force on the church. Key difference here in a hermeneutics of the Lutheran Confessions.
The Wolferinus correspondence, by the way, occurred after November 1540 and thus represents Luther’s most mature opinion on these matter. Perhaps we can speculate and consider that tossing off such opinions at table [assuming he said it] in 1540 was part of a larger conversation ongoing as Lutherans struggled to be reverent with the Lord’s body and blood during the actio, and what best to do after. Luther came down, as he did, on this issue with greater clarity and definition when he said what is explicitly endorsed by the Solid Declaration:
Therefore, we shall define the time of the sacramental action in this way: that it starts with the beginning the Our Father and lasts until all have communicated, have emptied chalice, have consumed the hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left the altar. In this way we shall be safe and free from the scruples and scandals of such endless questions.
Now, let’s continue though with the assumption that: a) Luther said what Pr. Curtis here supplies from the table talk and b) This opinion is not superceded by his later remarks in his Wolferinus correspondence:
I do not notice Luther endorsing shutting up Jesus in a ciborium, or a cabinet and bringing him out later in the week to take along to the hospital or nursing home or to give a private communion in the sanctuary.
So, I’m not sure your quotes really in fact contradict, or set aside, the clear statement, which has the force of church confession, as we have it in SD VII.87.
I’m not terribly impressed by Wengert’s scholarship on these points, clouded as he is by modern scholarship’s attempt to rehabilitate Melanchton, which has led to unfortunate mischief in the K/W edition of the Book. Wengert is a member of a church body that is in full communion with Reformed churches, so again, I mean no disrespect, but on these fine points of the doctrine of the Supper, I do not believe Wengert is as reliable a source as we need.
Note carefully: adhering to SD VII.87 and the Wolferinus correspondence there noted is not receptionism, Pr. Curtis. I believe you realize that, but it seemed like you are here again attempting to bring that back into the conversation.
In Christ,
PTM
———————————-
Rev. McCain,
One more thing. . .
So I finally opened up LSB to read the rubrics. If we just say the black and do the red, then we will do this with the unconsumed elements:
“At the conclusion of the Distribution or during the Post-Communion Canticle, the remaining consecrated elements are set in order on the altar and covered with a veil.”
Nothing is said about consuming the remaining elements. Nothing more is said about these elements at all in the Altar Book that I can see. So the LSB rubric actually requires reservation as written.
[[McCain: The rubric speaks to the proper veiling during the actio and instituted use. I'm sure this will be dealt with in the LSB Desk Edition which will be, as I've noted elsewhere, a commentary on the liturgy and rubrics. A "black" on "red" I suppose. We'll both look forward to further elucidation. As Dr. Luther said, though, and our Confessions assert: "Therefore, we shall define the time of the sacramental action in this way: that it starts with the beginning the Our Father and lasts until all have communicated, have emptied chalice, have consumed the hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left the altar.” That seems like a wise and helpful rubric for all of us on these points. Thanks for your comment.]]
“…and lasts until all have communicated, have emptied chalice, have consumed the hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left the altar.”
Perhaps a simple question: Does this statement mean that the Presence remains until each one of those five events have occurred, or until the first one has occurred, or some other criterion or combination? After all, the theoretical situation here is when not all of those events take place simultaneously but when they are separated by some time, and it’s hard to see that the Luther quotation, strictly speaking, can be brought to bear without some qualification.
[[McCain: According to everything I've read and studied, Luther was speaking very intentionally here in reference to the Divine Service, advocating that within that service the elements be consecrated and consumed before the priest would leave the altar. I'm not really sure how this much is not clear from the comment. We do best to leave it at this, and thus avoid speculations and opinions that go beyond what we can say with sure confidence. Our Formula of Concord offers the confession and direction that we take, eat, not take, eat, set aside and use later. That is the best way to go. Advocating for anything else goes beyond our Confession.]]
As far as I can tell, the parties in this discussion all agree that the elements MAY be reserved, and if reserved the right practice is to consecrate them again when celebrating the Lord’s Supper with them again. And if they are reserved, it sounds like all agree that the elements are certainly to be treated reverently. The parties also all seem to agree that the best practice is to consume all of the elements, reserving none.
Please correct me if I have missed something. Otherwise, the disagreement appears to be confined to arguing whether the reserved elements ARE or ARE NOT the Body and Blood of Christ. McCain says they ARE NOT, while accusing others of insisting that they ARE. Again, please correct me if I am wrong here.
So, here’s my question: If reserved, as long as they are treated reverently and reconsecrated when later distributed, what is at stake in this matter of determining whether they are still the Body and Blood of Christ? What does it matter to me, a poor sinner? Are not these “scruples and scandals of such endless questions” exactly what Luther intended to avoid in suggesting complete consumption?
If reserved, I tend to agree with the belief that elements remain the Body and Blood of Christ. But I cannot say this without doubt. I would have even more doubts about saying they ARE NOT the Body and Blood of Christ. Who are we to define when Christ leaves the elements? I believe Luther poses the perfect solution in the Wolferinus letter: Consume everything and the question goes away! I don’t understand why some find this so difficult to achieve.
I will add here that I do not believe the Wolferinus letter contends (as Rev. McCain appears to insist) that reserved elements ARE NOT the Body and Blood of Christ. It seems to me that the end of the sacramental action as defined by Luther in this quotation is entirely dependent upon the complete consumption of the elements. If they are not fully consumed, we are left in doubt. Again, I believe these “scruples and scandals of such endless questions” are exactly what Luther intended to avoid in suggesting complete consumption.
PAX!
Erich
[[Dr. Heidenreich, I believe that you are essentially correct in your summary. Nobody is advocating heresy, of course, but we are in strong disagreement about if we can assert the durative nature of the Real Presence. I would be against referring to reverently setting aside the bread and wine that remains as "reservation." The Wolferinus correspondence is Luther's definitive understanding of what the actio and proper use, which of course can never be separated from the Real Presence. We do best simply to stick with what our Confessions advocate in order to avoid all these endless speculations and fruitless wrangling, as I believe this entire discussion has proven. Lutherans do NOT reserve the body and blood of Christ. Roland Ziegler's article, referenced elsewhere, is a true tour de force on these issues.]]
Here is what Rev. McCain wrote at http://www.redeemer-fortwayne.org/blog.php?msg=9824
“My assertion is that Pastor Petersen is teaching that the bread and wine that remain after the benediction in the Lord’s Supper are to be regarded as the body and blood of Jesus, and therefore can and msut be reserved and can be used at some future time to commune people, as the body and blood of Christ. I regard this to be an error and an opinion and teaching that is contrary to FC SD VII.87.” – Rev. McCain.
Here is the problem: Rev. McCain has misunderstood and misrepresented my position. This could have been cleared up much earlier if Rev. McCain had included a link or a quote of my position. I understand that his desire in not doing so was to protect my reputation, but I am a public teacher of the Church. He also failed to inform me of what he thought was my error. I actually did not know he was writing against me. I thought he was creating a straw man, that no one in the LCMS actually holds the position he was writing against, but I didn’t think he thought was writing against me because what he was critiquing isn’t my teaching. But since he simply posted about certain groups in the LCMS, which could not defend themselves and could not be checked by the reader, the only thing that was accomplished was to cast possible suspicion on entire groups of LCMS pastors. That was unfortunate. So I am very glad that Rev. McCain has now named me and we know that I am the cause of his concerns. Now I can defend myself. I can point to my many statements about this issue, of which even a casual and cursory reading will instantly dispel the charges and show that Rev. McCain simply misunderstood what I wrote or said in every instance regarding this issue.
The character of Our Lord’s presence after the Service of Holy Communion is an open question. That means that no one in the LCMS is allowed to be dogmatic about it. We can hold our opinions, but we cannot insist on them. This does not mean that there is no right answer. It simply means that we recognize that our understanding of the Scripture is not clear on this issue and that it is not a necessary doctrine for fellowship. If anyone insists on his opinion, he makes his opinions the norma normata and is a pharisess of the worst sort. Ministers of the Word of God must not and cannot insist on their own opinions and private interpretations. If they do so they will destroy the Church and build cults.
Rev. McCain’s position has always been held by some Lutherans, somewhere, as his quotes show. The problem with his position is that he has no Scritpure passages to show this idea. Not one. He expects that Our Lord somehow withdraws after the Service, like fog dispelling in the morning sun, or that He performs a second miracle which changes the substance of His Body into bread, or in some way stops being present or never was present. I have heard one person of Rev. McCain’s opinion speculate that Our Lord’s Word only causes Him to be present in the bread of Holy Communion in those precise molecules which He knows will be eaten during that Service. So if the pastor holds up the chalice and says “the Blood of Christ” before He gives it to you, he is only partially correct, because whatever drips onto your lip and is not consumed or clings to the side of the bowl is just plain wine, which is mixed with the Blood of Christ. These speculations, utterly apart from the words of Christ, are at least as foolish and vain as anything Thomas Aquinas ever tried. To insist on them without Bible passages is diabolical.
At the same time, Rev. McCain is free to speculate on this, as have been those he has quoted. He simply is not free to insist on his view.
For my part I have never said the Body of Our Lord “must” be reserved. I have, in fact, repeatedly urged that it not be reserved, but that everything be consumed at the altar if at all possible. Rev. McCain is completely wrong in his summary of and characterization of my position as he posted it on cyberstones and as he explained it here in various posts. I do believe that the Body of Our Lord is present in the Holy Communion. And I see no reason to veer from the plain words of Our Lord and imagine ways for Him to get out of it. He says “is” and I take it at that.
Because of this, what I have said, in conformity with the LSB altar manual, the TLH rubrics, and the LW rubrics, as well as the long historic practice of the Church, that the Body of Our Lord may be reserved and used to communicate shut-ins or held to the next Communion. Again, I do not think this is the best or strongest practice! Let me repeat: I am not advocating that despite the rubrics, COW, TLH, LW, and LSB. I do not encourage it. It is not my practice. But it is absolutely allowable. It is not wrong. And anyone who says it is wrong has stepped outside the bounds and made his opinion the Law. My advice for how to deal with the remaining elements can be found, among other places, at http://www.redeemer-fortwayne.org/blog.php?msg=9802 (You can also find a link there to Rev. Harju’s very helpful essay on this issue. There you find that while Rev. McCain’s position has always been held by some Lutherans somehwere, so also has the idea that Our Lord’s Body endures in the bread even after the Service. Rev. McCain has not given you everything Luther said on this. At least at some times Luther, unlike Rev. McCain, held that it did. In fact, I think if his letters are read in context it becomes clear that contrary to Melanchthon Luther always held this. I don’t think he has been adequately portrayed here on Cyberbrethren. So also, though, we should note that Luther tolerated Melanchthon and did not insist on his opinion. And here is another link that might help bring light to this debate: http://concordialutheran.googlepages.com/ToMixornottoMix.pdf.)
Now I think we could use some clarifications from Rev. McCain. Do you hold that holding the remaining elements after Service for the next Communion is a heretical practice? I have not heard Rev. McCain say that such a practice is tantamount to heresy. I do not think he wants to say that, but you charges against my clear words leave me confused. It almost seems as though you think your opinion, without any Scripture, is the binding position. I don’t really think that is the case, but your charge against me, along with your vow to change the rubrics of the Missouri Synod’s past 60 years and the altar guild manual to better fit your personal opinion, could look that way. So I want to give you the opportunity to clear the air. Have I misheard you? Are you saying more than that this is your opinion? Do you refuse the possibility of the enduring presence and count it as heresy? Do you have any Bible passages for this position? Or do you acknowledge that it is an open question? Do you reject and refuse fellowship with those who practice in accordance with the LSB altar guild manual, TLH< and LW and use the remaining elements to commune shut-ins outside of the Divine Service? If you are asked to serve as a guest pastor at an LCMS congregation that practices this will you honor it or will you insist on your own way?
Yours in Christ,
Dave Petersen
Here’s my attempt at a summary of the debate, cross-posted from Cyberstones:
http://redeemer-fo…/blog.php?msg=9876
An attempt at a summary:
The Basics:
We all agree on the best practice: consume all the elements consecrated at each service immediately and hold separate services for shut ins.
If that best practice, for local reasons, is not followed, the remaining elements are to be treated with great honor until the next Communion during which the entire Service of the Sacrament should take place.
In that latter case, this question which is before us (are such elements reserved for future distribution still the Body of Christ and Blood of Christ while they are being reserved for that future distribution) arises and calls out for discussion for several reasons:
A) It would seem an important question of piety for those who are traveling to the shut-ins with such consecrated elements. They will want to deport themselves differently based on whether they 1) believe such elements to be the Very Body and Blood of Christ, 2) believe them to be nothing but bread and wine, or 3) remain willfully agnostic on the matter.
B) How one might answer the question before us also has implications for other doctrines (the Word of God, the mode of presence in the Supper, what a Sacrament [actio sacramentalis] is in the first place, etc.)
Now, if I might, a summary of where I see the argument after a day or two of fervent discussion.
1. Rev. McCain claims that such elements reserved for distribution are not (no longer) the Body and Blood of Christ. He is hanging his hat on three arguments:
A) FC SD VII.87
B) There is no command in Scripture to lengthen distribution past a short period of time.
C) A certain interpretation of Luther’s Wolferinus correspondence.
2. I (and, it appears that Weedon and Petersen are sympathetic) would assert that they are the Body and Blood of Christ. Because,
A) After the Verba we, in accordance with the simple statements in the Evangelists and Small Catechism, believe that in the Lord’s Supper the bread is the Body of Christ and the wine his Blood.
B) We find no statement in Scripture that would ever cause us to infer that this ever ceases to be the case in the course of a distribution.
C) Further, Luther affirms this in the Wolferinus correspondence when he says that the actio sacramentalis, should be considered in effect from the Verba (or perhaps the Lord’s Prayer, depending on how you want to translate Oratio Dominica) until the “chalice has been emptied and the remaining bread consumed.”
D) A statement from the Table Talk also directly affirms that Luther understood it this way (Rev. McCain, however, discounts quotations from the Tischreden)
—————————–
[[McCain note: "Discount is too strong a word, I express reservations (no pun intended) about the realiability of the TT due to the nature of their context and how they were recorded. Also, on this point, Pr. C, as I've pointed out elsewhere, you need to consider the chronology. The TT remark was made before the Wolferinus correspondence, leading me to believe that Luther was in the process of formulating his own opinion on this, which opinion was asserted more definitively with the Wolferinus correspondence.]]
—————————-
Curtis continues:
E) So we may summarize our position: all Lutherans agree that the Presence of our Lord certainly continues through the whole distribution. If there is a pause in the distribution, whether for five minutes, five hours, or five days, we see nothing in the Scriptures or Confessions that would encourage us to call these consecrated elements anything other than what Jesus called them in that consecration: His Body and Blood.
—————————————- —-
[[McCain: I do not regard a five day "distribution" to be in fact a distribution, but an interruption of the actio of a proper celebration of the Sacrament. I'm dubious about a "five hour" distribution, which to me, would men a five hour Divine Service where there is literally a five hour period of time from consecration through benediction. Does that happen anywhere? I see nothing in the Scriptures or Confessions to justify this view of the distribution. But definitely concur that within the proper use, within the actio of that use, from consecration through benediction it is the body and blood of Christ, which depends not at all on the reception of it, nor the faith of the receiver, not the intention of the pastor, but wholly and alone on Christ's Word of Promise.]]
——————————-
Curtis continue:
3. Prs. Brown and Cwirla have pleaded
A) for good practice as listed above
B) that brothers not condemn one another on this point
C) that the question before us is at best speculation and if the good practice is followed the whole matter becomes “no harm, no foul.”
———————————-
[[McCain: I'm not aware of anyone "condemning" anyone. Saying somebody's opinion is an error and incorrect is not a 'condemnation' so permit me to suggest we tone down the rhetoric on this point a bit.]]
———————————-
Responses:
To Rev. McCain’s points:
1. A): As Pr. Weedon and I have argued repeatedly, FC SD VII.87 simply says nothing at all about the question at hand. As the text clearly has it, It is directed against Roman practices and says nothing about a Lutheran Lord’s Supper with a long-term distribution.
1.B): Neither is there a command that the eating all has to take place within a giving amount of time. Where the Scriptures are silent, surely charity should prevail even if we both agree that such long distributions are best avoided. Some brothers (even Pr. Cwirla) disagree and reserve elements (in accord with longstanding rubrics). We can argue that such practice is less than best – but I think we can hardly condemn it out of hand as resolutely unbiblical: that would be legalism.
1.C) I confess that I find Rev. McCain’s analysis of the Wolferinus correspondence as unconvincing as his analysis of the FC SD. Luther says the presence continues until “the chalice is emptied” and “the remaining bread consumed.” According to the rule of logic, the best interpretation that Rev. McCain can hope for here is that this actually says nothing about the consecrated elements that remain in the Church after everybody leaves. Luther does not address that in this quotation. If he had addressed it, charity would cause us to assume that he would be consistent with his 1540 Tischreden statement.
Further, Rev. McCain’s arguments to the contrary on the Luther quotes rest on these faulty assumptions: The Wolferinus letter and the Tischreden contradict one another (which I do not believe, as illustrated above) and Luther’s thought always improved over time.
————————–
[[McCain: There is no evidence presented that Luther condoned as an ongoing practice a "five hour" or "five day" distribution. The TT, assuming it is reliable, must be understood in light of the much more clear assertion in the Wolferinus correspondence, which came later and represents Luther's more mature and considered opinion. Please also note that the issue here is not Luther's opinion, but what the BoC specifically points us to in Luther's writings. That is the only bearing Luther's writings have here, not any opinion that might touch on the point. That is a key hermeneutical point of interpreting the BOC. Pr. Curtis is, in my opinion, neglecting this key point of interpreting the BoC and Luther's writings as used in them.]]
To Prs. Brown and Cwirla:
3.A) Agreed.
3.B) Agreed.
3.C) Agreed as far as it goes – but see above for why I think the question is worth discussing. But I understand the point of view that encourages us to simply avoid such questions – even though I do not always believe that such avoidance is possible. But perhaps I could frame it this way, in three easy points, and please Prs. Brown and Cwirla:
1) It is certainly impious to call elements that have been consecrated “Not the Body and Blood of Christ.” (Prs. Brown and Cwirla have said as much – contrary to Rev. McCain’s position.).
——————————–
[[McCain: I do not regard them to be the body and blood of Christ, but speak of them reverently as the host of Christ's body and blood. Because they have served as host, they are to be treated with all dignity, honor, respect and reverence. You may still consider that "impious" but my position is not quite as crassly put as your comment might suggest.]]
———————————–
Curtis continues:
2) If it is in error to call such elements the Body and Blood of Christ during an hours or days long pause in distribution, it is an error born of piety rather than impiety.
3) So long as what has been consecrated is always kept separate from what has not been and is always treated with the utmost respect, there is no cause for this issue to break fellowship between confessors of the Augsburg Confession.
———————————
[[McCain: Nobody, and I mean nobody, has suggested any 'breaking of fellowship.' We need to be able to say that a person is wrong and incorrect and give our reasons without rushing to such conclusions and thereby effectively squelching a debate and discussion with what strikes me as rather a passive-aggressive way of dealing with a criticism from a brother in Christ. I do not assume anyone has accused me of having fallen away from the true faith because I do not concur with their view, and nobody should assume the same of me or anyone else who disagrees with them.]]
—————————————-
Curtis continues:
I think those three points will please everyone except perhaps Rev. McCain (and of course they will not please receptionists – from whom I’m surprised we’ve not heard more). And I will add a fourth that I hope Prs. Brown and Cwirla would also endorse:
—————————-
[[McCain: None of these issues really are of any consequence to receptionists, since they dont' believe the body and blood of Christ can be said to be present apart from the physical receiving of them into their mouths. This entire conversation probably strike those who hold that view as ridiculous, from start to finish (no pun intended).]]
—————————–
4) However, if someone (like the offending party in the Eisleben/Wolferinus episode) were to take Rev. McCain’s opinion into actions like mixing the consecrated with the unconsecrated or treating them flippantly after the Benediction, that would be a different, more serious, and troubling matter.
—————————-
[[McCain: And that is something I've made very clear I would have the gravest of, forgive me again, "reservations" with as well. As for Pieper and Mueller, if you, Pastor Curtis, believe those remarks to be so objectionable you may feel free to appeal them to the Commission on Doctrinal Review, per the Synod Bylaws. I have my hands full enough at this point with some other issues, including the misuse of a manual for altar guild ladies, which has apparently been elevated to the level of binding rubrics and justification for the error of reservationism.
Final thought from McCain: What Pr. Curtis has not dealt with in this very well presented summary is my chief concern: the manner in which pastors commune people from reserved elements that they regard to be, and remain perpetually, the body and blood of Christ. They are, in some cases apparently, presenting them to those being communed in such a way that the Words of Institution become merely an assurance of a past even, or a "declaration of grace" rather than a proclamation of absolution, delivered with their full force as the great "This is...for you" but instead, "This was said to be at some point in the past." That's my chief pastoral concern and as I've said before, if they are NOT doing that, then I don't care what their private, speculation is, but if they are doing THAT, then I'm extremely concerned and would appeal that they not do it that way.
Also, Pr. Curtis failed in his summary to mention Professor Ziegler's excellent presentation on these issues:
http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/940
I believe Professor Ziegler's presentation lays out precisely why, historically, Lutherans do not practice reservationism, and I commend it again to any/all interested in this issue.]]
I have had several conversations with Pastor Petersen on this and can attest to every point he makes. He has always advocated consumption as the best practice, but is unwilling to condemn those who use that which is remaining after the service for shut-in and hospital calls.
———————————-
[[McCain: I’m convinced it is an error to commune shut ins and sick people with elements from the altar after the service is ended and treat those elements as if they are still the body and blood of Jesus and not speak the words of institution over them. I’ve come to understand through this conversation that “intention” appears to be the guarantee for some that the elements after the actio of the Divine Service is ended remain the body and blood of Christ. That’s a new insight for me, that I have gained from this conversation. If however a person does believe the bread and wine to be and remain forever the body and blood of Christ as long as they are intended to be used properly, at some point, that would be a private opinion and speculation, which, as long as the Verba are repeated as declaration, not as mere reminder or assurance of what was said, I have no problems with those private opinions. I find no strong convincing evidence in our Confessions or our subsequent history that reservationism is a solid Lutheran practice. Roland Ziegler’s article explains this very thoroughly: http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/940
As for “condemnation” … I’m not aware of anyone “condemning” anyone and inflating the rhetoric like this does not really serve the discussion, but is distracting, in my opinion, Pr. B.
—————————–
I don’t think you answered this question posed by Pastor Curtis. When Luther states that the sacramental action “lasts until all have communicated, have emptied chalice, have consumed the hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left the altar are all of these conditions to be met or just the last one? While you responded, your response:
We do best to leave it at this, and thus avoid speculations and opinions that go beyond what we can say with sure confidence. Our Formula of Concord offers the confession and direction that we take, eat, not take, eat, set aside and use later. That is the best way to go. Advocating for anything else goes beyond our Confession.
seems to be more of a dodge than an answer. By the way if this is your only response, which is basically an “I don’t know” and “We shouldn’t be asking anyway” how can you with certainty say that the body and the blood of Christ do not remain present if the chalice is not empty and the hosts not eaten?
[[McCain: I'll let pass the fact that whoever you are, you don't seem to be confident enough in yourself, or your question, to sign your name to it. I'm having a very hard time understanding what is so difficult to understand here. Within the actio of the celebration the Supper, from consecration to benediction, we know our Lord's body and blood is present under the bread and wine. I have no reason to believe that outside the actio, as delineated in our Confessions, the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ."
If others do, that is their pious speculation.
I believe that our Lutheran practice, which can be demonstrated, as Prof. Ziegler has, is that we do save what can be saved for the next celebration, if it is not consumed, whether it be with a shut-in or in the Divine Service. However or whenever this celebration takes place, the verba must be spoken in their fullness without the qualification or verbose baggage that it was already done at an earlier time thus pretending that Christ’s words can have absolutely no more effect on the elements since they were previously consecrated.]]
Pr. McCain,
What of the bread which has been consumed and is being dispersed throughout our bodies? Does that bread remain Jesus’ body, or does He remain inside us in some other way while the bread itself is broken down into mere elements?
[[McCain Response: I'll just let the Formula of Concord answer your inquiry:
63] The other eating of the body of Christ is oral or sacramental, when the true, essential body and blood of Christ are also orally received and partaken of in the Holy Supper, by all who eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine in the Supper—by the believing as a certain pledge and assurance that their sins are surely forgiven them, and Christ dwells and is efficacious in them, but by the unbelieving for their judgment and condemnation, 64] as the words of the institution by Christ expressly declare, when at the table and during the Supper He offers His disciples natural bread and natural wine, which He calls His true body and true blood, at the same time saying: Eat and drink. For in view of the circumstances this command evidently cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way; 65] to which afterwards the other command adds still another and spiritual eating, when the Lord Christ says further: This do in remembrance of Me, where He requires faith [which is the spiritual partaking of Christ's body). ]]
Ignorant question: “In this multi-blog debate, are we missing a key component to the Scriptural description of the Supper: the physical assembly of the communicants?”
The service of the Lord’s Supper is a unified gathering of believers in one physical place and time. Ref: 1 Cor 11:18-22,33
I can easily see a Divine Service as one gathering and the communing of a shut-in as a second (smaller) gathering, but how does extending the distribution of the Lord’s Supper across the two locations mesh with the passages that describe it as an assembly? Is that one service of the sacrament or two? Does such a thing matter? Is having a physical assembly of all communicants at the time of the service important for the Lord’s Supper?
Does this even apply? Am I way out in left field?
I’ll leave it to far greater minds than mine to answer.
[[McCain: No, Mike, you are precisely correct. It is why Luther said what he said, which is pointed to as binding on us by the Formula of Concord: the action comprising the instituted use extends from consecration through the benediction in the Divine Service.]]
I’ve tried to follow this discussion as best I can on the various web sites. One site in particular makes it almost impossible to do this, however. In any event here are my brief comments, a confessional suggestion, and pastoral question.
1. Years ago on another more contentious Lutheran forum the Wolferinus correspondence was discussed and I provided a translation of it for discussion. This is a small point but I have seen it brought up again. Oratio dominica means Lord’s Prayer, not Verba.
2. Since I believe McCain is correct, I need not dwell on the point he has clearly and properly made. Let me instead take this discussion in a different but very related direction. The heart of this issue concerns the reliquae and I haven’t seen our symbols brought to bear on this question, which they most certainly address. The better question to ask here is WHY are their significant amounts of the body and blood of our Lord remaining? According to our confessions, which I’ll assume that every pastor on this thread fully adheres too, it is clearly stated that Lutheran practice demands that all communicants be examined and absolved prior to receiving the Lord’s Supper. AC XXV.1: “The custom has been retained among us of not administering the sacrament to those who have not previously been examined and absolved” (Tappert 61). Since creative exegesis has already been demonstrated in this discussion, I should emphasize that we are not to understand this examination and absolution as a one time event that suffices for all celebrations of the sacrament. Apology XXIV.1 make this clear: “In our churches Mass is celebrated every Sunday and on other festivals, when the sacrament is offered to those who wish for it AFTER they have been examined and absolved” (Tappert 249). Here is reflected the proper Lutheran practice of examining and absolving all those who wish to receive the Lord’s Supper. Note, the sacrament is celebrated every Sunday but only those who have been examined and absolved receive.
3. This is further confirmed in the church orders from Luther’s day. I’m not at my office so I don’t have access to them but in Eric Lund’s Documents from the History of Lutheranism, he conveniently reproduces some of the early orders. In them you will see the following advice: ‘set aside the correct number of hosts corresponding to those who have announced for the sacrament’ (my paraphrase).
4. What does all of this mean? It means that the reliquae should be minimal at best. Since Lutheran practice, in accord with our symbols, requires the examination and absolution of those communing, which can only occur during a period of announcement prior to the sacrament, the pastor should only have to consume what remains in the chalice. Pastoral practice and discernment should learn to pour the proper amount in the chalice such that only a minimal amount remains. This ultimately means that proper, which is to say orthodox, Lutheran practice will have nothing remaining for the shut-in. Which leads me to my question on pastoral practice.
5. Are the Verba not being spoken in front of shut-ins when they receive the sacrament? How do you possibly reconcile this with FC SD VII.79? Moreover, what about the faith of the hearer? The Verba are spoken as much for the consecration of the elements as they are to “awaken, strengthen, and confirm” the faith of the hearer (FC SD VII.81). If they are being spoken, then the question motivating this discussion is moot.
Carl
This is a fascinating discussion on the Lord’s Supper. It seems to me that there is no scriptural basis for the physical presence of Christ to disappear simply because the divine service has ended. However, at the same time I do not believe the practice of reservation is right and proper. I would simply say that it is not useful and needed because a pastor and shut-in may celebrate the Lord’s Supper together as Christ’s church. We must also remember that Lutherans primarily spoke against papal reservation of the body and blood of Christ for adoration apart from the Lord’s Supper.
There is a simple solution: Eat and Drink everything! Even a receptionist should conduct the Lord’s Supper in this manner because it is the Lord’s command.
Paul (McCain), I think you’re right on in this debate.
As you point out, the Confessions don’t point their readers to Luther’s tabletalk but very specifically to the Wolferinus correspondence.
Roland Ziegler’s research article is indeed a critical reference here, as it describes the transition from the Roman practice of reservation to the Lutheran practice of “reconsecration” in the territories of Brandenburg-Ansbach-Kulmbach (BAK, Franconia) and Brandenburg (Berlin). A few points are worth restating here for clarification: First, a 1526 diet of BAK decreed that left-over elements should be reserved for the shut-ins, but also that priests should not marry. (Ziegler characterizes this decree as “a document of compromise and ambiguity.”) However, already in the 1528 Church Order of the area, a strong case was made AGAINST the reservation, even for the good purpose of communing the sick: the consecration and the distribution / reception is not to be torn apart.
Ziegler also points to the 1540 Brandenburg Church order which allows for communing the sick with pre-consecrated elements in cities, while mandating home consecration in rural areas. He calls this document “the deliberate effort to create a mediating position between the Reformation and the Roman Catholic Church.” The elector behind this document, Joachim II, sided with the Augsburg Interim of 1548. However, after his death the mediating provisions for communing the sick with reserved elements were abolished.
While Luther, in a couple of letters expressing his opinion on Joachim’s church order, tolerates this practice as a transitional practice, rooted in piety, in a chruch moving AWAY from the papacy until a better practice can be put into its place, it is surprisingly Melanchthon who approves of it and expresses only practical concerns. (Questions: Who’s the Melanchthonian now? And: why reinstitute something 500 years after the fact that was considered clearly transitional to begin with?)
Ziegler also points out that Chemnitz discusses this question in his Examination of the Council of Trent, where he basically affirms the strong connection between consecration and reception: the former is to take place in the presence of the recipients, following the example of the Last Supper where it all took place at once.
So far Ziegler’s excellent article that should raise a number of red flags for Lutherans when, as, e.g., in the ELCA, reservation for shut-in communion is practiced in Lutheran churches.
I also point to John Stephenson’s article from the Epiphany 1995 issue of Logia “Reflections on the Apporpriate Vessels for Consecrating and Distributing the Precious Blood of Christ.” As the title suggests, it is mainly on “individual (plastic) cups,” but he does address the question of Luther’s letters to Wolferinus. (And he corrects the received translation of “oratio dominica” from “Lord’s Prayer” to “Words of the Lord,” based on research done by Tom Hardt.)
As I read the pertinent paragraphs in SD VII (mainly 83-87), I get the impression that, while this article in particular is written against the (Reformed) Sacramentarians, it does shore up the earlier consensus among the Lutherans against the Catholic position. While in the early decades of the Reformation, Rome was the main opponent, now the Reformed are focused on due to the crypto-Calvinists among the Melanchthonians in Wittenberg. And here’s also the context for Luther’s letters to Wolferinus.
Perhaps we can say that Rome overextended the power of God’s word, so that the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the consecrated elements could be conceived of apart from the concrete, gathered “Christian assembly” mentioned in the paragraphs of SD VII referenced above; on the other hand, the Zwinglians and their like-minded followers didn’t ascribe any real power to the words of institution in relation to the elements: it’s all just in the heart / mind of the believer and / or in heaven — consequently, what happens to the elements after the Supper is ended matters little or not at all.
Those who wish to allow (as, admittedly, only second-best practice) for consecrated elements to be used (without a new consecration) for shut-in communion seem to be moving close to the overextension of Christ’s words. All we can say from the words of institution, to which the SD repeatedly and emphatically points us, is that Christ spoke and gave and the disciples ate and drank. We are not told that they took some of the consecrated food along “for later use.” Of course, we’re also not told that they didn’t take anything for later use or for the women who weren’t present at the time. But think of the context of the Last Supper: the Passover, see Ex. 12:10.
Since faith comes from hearing and since faith is necessary for the salutary, worthy reception of the Lord’s Supper, it would seem absurd to conceive of a celebration of the Lord’s Supper that would last — with interruptions — for five days! To be sure, if that many people were gathered in one place (attending one divine service) so that a five-day distribution were needed, well, there you have an entirely different case: all communicants heard the words spoken at the same time, which makes them one assembly. The same cannot be said of Grandma Schmidt in the nursing home when given the left-overs from Sunday’s Supper on Thursday without any further ado. What’s her faith based on?
1. “oratio dominica” means Lord’s prayer, not ‘words of the Lord’. The word “oratio” is a singular, feminine noun in the nominative case. In an ecclesial or liturgical context, it is rendered “prayer” (L&S III.E); “dominica” is a singular, feminine adjective in the nominative case agreeing with “oratio” and is rendered “of or belonging to a lord or master.” Thus “oratio dominica” means “Lord’s prayer,” just as “dies dominica” means “Lord’s day” (Vgl. Rev 1:10) and “coena dominica” means “Lord’s Supper” (Vgl. 1 Cor. 11:20).
2. FC SD VII.79-80: “In the administration of Communion the words of institution are to be spoken or sung distinctly and clearly BEFORE the congregation and are under no circumstances to be omitted. Thereby we render obedience to the command of Christ.” You should really read the whole paragraph in FC SD VII as it shows clearly the purpose of the Verba. Put simply, if you wish to be Lutheran and faithful to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, then you speak the words of the Lord, the Verba, every time you celebrate His feast.