tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post2278909870962454783..comments2023-11-05T02:55:10.230-06:00Comments on Gottesdienst Online: Discerning the Lord's BodyPr. H. R.http://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-81501463886734442492012-09-25T18:00:40.024-05:002012-09-25T18:00:40.024-05:00Thanks for your question, Stephen. As I understan...Thanks for your question, Stephen. As I understand it, this is the proper sort of purpose for an "eternal light," namely, to signify that the Reliquiae have reverently been set apart against the next Holy Communion. That sort of usage rightly connects the presence of Christ to His tangible means of grace. Of course, that is not the way that an "eternal light" is typically used or understood among Protestants. In that case, it is perceived as a sign or symbol of a "spiritual" presence, even apart from the Word and Sacrament. Given that prevailing ambiguity, a congregation would certainly have to be catechized in a deliberate usage of the "eternal light," if it were going to be used to demarcate the reserved Sacrament.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-47763338005169794802012-09-25T17:23:37.813-05:002012-09-25T17:23:37.813-05:00Pastor Stuckwisch,
What role does an eternal ligh...Pastor Stuckwisch,<br /><br />What role does an eternal light in the chancel have in identifying the presence of the Lord's Body and Blood? I thinking of those that reserve the Reliquiae in a respectful manner on the Altar. In other words what is the purpose of the eternal light?<br /><br />Stephen HarrisCecil The Sea Sick Sea Serpenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13537345550560367967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-74209069830660394632012-09-24T23:24:20.711-05:002012-09-24T23:24:20.711-05:00Yes, Pastor Braaten, this is precisely to the poin...Yes, Pastor Braaten, this is precisely to the point. We are only able to discern the Lord's Body by the Lord's Word, which determines (and tells us) what "this bread" is, what it is for, and what we are to do with it. Rightly to discern the Lord's Body, therefore, is to receive and eat His Body given. And you have discerned correctly that the same point obtains against the private mass, as also against the mixing of the consecrated elements with unconsecrated. In fact, the arguments of Luther and Chemnitz against the private mass contributed significantly to my thoughts on discerning the Lord's Body. But this really goes back to the Lord Jesus, and to St. Paul: The right discerning of the Lord's Body culminates in the faithful eating of His Body.<br /><br />So far as I have been able to determine, the sixteenth-century Lutherans were very consistent (if not unanimous) in consecrating only as many elements as they expected to need for the distribution of the Holy Communion, and in consuming whatever remained at the conclusion of the distribution. In this way, they honored the Word and Institution of Christ, and they avoided any ambiguity, confusion, or uncertainty.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-12060661251578573722012-09-24T21:35:05.867-05:002012-09-24T21:35:05.867-05:00So the mixing of consecrated elements with unconse...So the mixing of consecrated elements with unconsecrated elements doesn't discern the Lord's Body by rejecting our Lord's statements "This is my Body/Blood." The reservation of the consecrated elements for the purpose of adoration doesn't discern the Lord's Body by rejecting our Lord's command to take eat. So that the two statements of our Lord--what it is and what is to be done--remain inseparably united so that if we drop either off or ignore either, the Lord's Body is not discerned. Is this the essence of what you've written Pastor Stuckwisch?Jason Braatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05972415198647411045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-6700296190559287562012-09-24T21:33:27.013-05:002012-09-24T21:33:27.013-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jason Braatenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05972415198647411045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-85636288190198235252012-09-24T20:34:18.449-05:002012-09-24T20:34:18.449-05:00Well, okay, I guess I understand your point more c...Well, okay, I guess I understand your point more clearly now, but I disagree with you. I'm not minimizing anything, nor am I trying to molly coddle anyone. I'm saying that a failure to discern the Lord's Body is flat out wrong and should not be done, whether there are this or that particular consequences or not. I've allowed that reserving the consecrated elements against the next Holy Communion is a discerning of the Lord's Body. But I maintain that mixing the consecrated with unconsecrated elements is not. I don't believe I'm making that up. It belongs, for one thing, to the critique that St. Paul is making, namely, a failure to discern between ordinary food and the Lord's Supper, along with other problems that were occurring as a consequence of that basic failure.<br /><br />I do not believe that a failure to discern the Lord's Body in respect to the Reliquiae invalidates the entire Lord's Supper. But the fact that the Lord's Body is discerned in the Supper does not mean that the Reliquiae may legitimately be dealt with in any old manner. You have not addressed my basic point, that the Words of Christ include, not only, "This Is My Body," but also, "Take, eat." It is a denial of the Lord's Word to disregard the latter, no matter how much one affirms and confesses the former.<br /><br />I don't believe you are correct to say that I have invented or devised a condemning law apart from what God has spoken. I'm working directly from the Words of our Lord Himself, and from the Words handed over by His Apostle. It is the Lord Jesus who says, "Take, eat." How would you say that I have spoken more concretely than that? It is, rather, a human devising to take the consecrated elements -- concerning which the Lord has spoken, "Take, eat, this is My Body," and "Drink of it, all of you, this is My Blood" -- and to do otherwise with them than the Lord has spoken.<br /><br />Modern Lutherans have made a common and deliberate practice out of doing something that divides the Words of the Lord against themselves -- a practice that Luther and the early Lutherans regarded as a serious offense.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-28392830140972118192012-09-24T17:32:23.857-05:002012-09-24T17:32:23.857-05:00Just to note - I am not trying to self-justify (in...Just to note - I am not trying to self-justify (indeed, linking my own congregation was meant to personalize the objection, but it's hard to personalize without bringing in the air of self-justification). Indeed, I'd be happier bringing in the practice of consuming the elements -- but, in consultation with my elders that hasn't happened yet. Eh, if I am overly patient, so be it.<br /><br />However, here remains the problem -- "But failing to discern the Lord's Body does not necessarily result in weakness, sickness, or death. St. Paul does not lay that out as a threat, but describes what has happened." I don't think I buy that argument. The Law accuses, the Law always threatens -- and to say that just because there is not always sickness and death (that is open and obvious) is just an attempt to undercut the law. If one does not discern the Body of Christ -- THAT IS BAD. Don't mince around it -- don't mollycoddle things that lead to death. The Law is and must be preached in its full severity. In the day that you eat of it, you shall die, Adam. And he did -- he might not have seen that death for 930 years, but HE DIED. Then. Right then. Death was his.<br /><br />Not discerning Christ is to ignore Life Himself. It is not a small thing -- don't minimize it.<br /><br />And because of that fact, that the Law always accuses, I think -- whether it is you go too far or neglect the impact of the Law -- that connection is too harsh and goes beyond the proper severity of the Law. While consuming the reliquae does indeed show that you see the Body of Christ - reserving does as well. And even if folks were to mix (which I stopped when I got here) -- does that mean the years before I arrived my congregation did not discern Christ's Body and Blood in the Supper? No -- they just assumed things were over... I would not put that in the same category as the one who says, "This is just a mere symbol" - denying our Lord's Words out right. <br /><br />Or to put it this way -- to say "this is how the Body is to be discerned" that concretely when the Scriptures do not expressly say so is... potentially swinging around a condemning law of our own devising rather than one which God Himself has ordered us to speak.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-9961969299693041082012-09-24T08:04:44.089-05:002012-09-24T08:04:44.089-05:00Fr. Brown,
One more thing needs to be said in thi...Fr. Brown,<br /><br />One more thing needs to be said in this regard: just because your parish has always done it, does not mean that it's a good practice. Surely we all must gain a little distance from ourselves, a little objectivity, and perhaps a little thicker skin so that we can increase in faithfulness. We like to mouth the words "nobody's perfect" and "we are all sinners" - let us also take them to heart and consider our own need for repentance. I know that I and my parish have a long way to go, I can think of two specific incidences where brothers in the ministry have pointed out deficiencies in my practice. I thanked both of them and tried to improve. <br /><br />+HRCPr. H. R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-68236393427434835562012-09-24T06:59:33.322-05:002012-09-24T06:59:33.322-05:00This is why Dr. Luther responds in the way that he...This is why Dr. Luther responds in the way that he does to Besserer and to Wolferinus. To treat consecrated and unconsecrated elements alike, to mix them together, is a failure to discern the Lord's Body. That is the more serious when it is done deliberately, by those who are entrusted with the stewardship of the Mysteries, and with stubborn rhetoric to the effect that "I know better than Christ and His Church."<br /><br />But failing to discern the Lord's Body does not necessarily result in weakness, sickness, or death. St. Paul does not lay that out as a threat, but describes what has happened. Where those consequences occur, it is for the sake of discipline; the Lord in love judges His erring people, lest they be condemned along with the world. It makes sense that the consequences would differ, for example, depending on whether the failure to discern is in the eating and drinking of the Lord's Body (as though it were ordinary food), or in the removal of His Body from the sacred use and returning it to common use (as though it were ordinary food).<br /><br />What God has joined together, let no man separate. Where His Word has come to the elements, it is the Sacrament, the Communion of His Body and His Blood. And the same Lord who says, "This is My Body," also says, "Take, eat." We say "Amen," both to what it is, and to what it is for, and to what we are to do with it; and we act in faith accordingly. To remove the consecrated elements from sacred use, and return them to ordinary use, and then to argue that that they are no longer the Sacrament, is no different than a man divorcing his wife and then sending her away on the grounds that she is no longer his wife.<br /><br />The best practice, I believe, is the one that Dr. Luther urges in his response to Wolferinus (to which the Formula of Concord approvingly refers in its discussion of these very things): That is, for everything to be consumed before the pastor leaves the Altar. A larger amount of Reliquiae may require that all be consumed by the pastor and other communicants, perhaps immediately following the Divine Service. I have also acknowledged the practice of reverently setting apart the Reliquiae against the next Holy Communion, although I do not believe that is the best or most salutary practice (and it was decidedly not the historic Lutheran practice). Where the Reliquiae are set apart against the next Holy Communion, that does not mean confusing them with unconsecrated elements, but "discerning the Lord's Body" until it shall be eaten, as He has spoken. In such a case, the "use" of the Sacrament has not been broken, but extended; and the Lord's Words have not been divided against themselves, but drawn out over a longer time. I have come across comments in my reading which admit to such a practice, but not as though it were ideal or to be preferred. Eating and drinking at the Altar within the same Divine Service, and leaving nothing "until morning," is the strongest way of honoring the Lord's Words and discerning His Body.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-67597433638761259302012-09-23T22:26:09.519-05:002012-09-23T22:26:09.519-05:00I think it stems from exactly that sort of weaknes...I think it stems from exactly that sort of weakness, Pastor Curtis. And from a rather individualistic and atomistic view of the Sacrament. For all its arguments against "magic" and a "moment of the presence," it is receptionism that has taken a quite mechanistic position on the Sacrament, and has identified a precise "moment of the presence" in the eating and drinking. The "breadth" that Dr. Luther speaks of, in the right use of the Sacrament, embraces the consecration, the conduct, and the consumption of the Sacrament as the Holy Communion, wherein the many become one Body in Christ.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-42079949667880567792012-09-23T22:19:24.746-05:002012-09-23T22:19:24.746-05:00Thanks for your comments, Pastor Brown. Your poin...Thanks for your comments, Pastor Brown. Your points and cautions are well-taken. I don't think I've gone quite as far as you perceive, however. Discerning the Lord's Body is a matter of faith in the Words of Christ, and of eating and drinking His Body and Blood in such faith. But it is incumbent upon the ministers of the Sacrament to discern the Body, also in their words in actions, in such a way that confesses the truth of Christ's Word and catechizes the people in the faith of His Word. As there are a variety of ways in which that confessing and catechizing can take place, I do not presume to specify a narrow path, but to suggest a few particular ways in which it has been done, and can be done.<br /><br />Regarding the Reliquiae, however, I believe that latter-day Lutherans have been negligent in this regard. Belief in the "real presence," according to the Word of Christ, goes hand in hand with eating and drinking His Body given and His Blood poured out, also according to His Word. The "Nihil Rule" has been misused and abused to argue that the "leftovers" (sic) can be treated in any old manner, on the premise that they remain "outside of the use." But they are only "outside of the use" (of the Sacrament) if and when the Words of Christ are divided against themselves and set aside. That is to say, where Christ has spoken, concerning "this bread" and "this cup," that His Christians are to "eat" and "drink of it," it is a contradiction of His Word and Institution to do otherwise. The "Nihil Rule" has thus already been broken, so to speak, by the removing of the consecrated elements from the right use of the Sacrament. Does this invalidate the entire Sacrament, the entire Holy Communion, and the discerning of the Lord's Body on the part of the communicants otherwise? I do not make that claim, nor do I take that position. But the discarding of the Reliquiae, or to relegate the Reliquiae to a common usage, is contrary to the Lord's Word and Institution, and, to that extent, it is a failure to discern His Body.Rev. Rick Stuckwischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664716292792101540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-5114972635325357182012-09-23T21:17:26.498-05:002012-09-23T21:17:26.498-05:00I like the idea - but I think you push it too far....I like the idea - but I think you push it too far. To put it bluntly - as far as I can tell my congregation has never had the practice of consuming the reliquae. Does this then mean... we've never discerned the Body of Christ? <br /><br />I think this works to explain why some practices are good -- but the context of the initial verse has negative consequences -- if you do not discern, you die. So to tie other practices directly too discernment I fear may be going too far afield, too strong a point to it. Not that I think you were intending this - but I think it might be an unforseen consequence of your argument. It's been a long day, and I'm too tired to think of a way of keeping the admonishment to seriousness without ---- turning variance in practice into de facto non-discernment of Christ's Body.Rev. Eric J Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17747919365522145094noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4778905687600416321.post-31451076500130068992012-09-23T20:47:22.982-05:002012-09-23T20:47:22.982-05:00Beautifully put. I wonder if the problem here is a...Beautifully put. I wonder if the problem here is a very one dimensional understanding of the Holy Communion as merely a commodity, tangible forgiveness, if you will. I think much of the "sloppiness" does indeed flow from a weak understanding of the Real Presence. And I wonder, again, if that does not find it's heart in Receptionism. <br /><br />+HRCPr. H. R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16756503062523543708noreply@blogger.com