Eucharistic Adoration (Lutherans only please)

[SPALATIN]

I'm not sure I've gone that far (I sure hope not, cuz then I'm the one who sounds like a Baptist!)... As for me....it seems that at least some implicit support from Scripture helps. And by implicit, I'm not speaking of a verse that could be interpreted to mean something in support of the alleged point.

By implicit, I mean asking of the theological point, "what is it for?" or "what does this mean?"

IOW, "what does it mean" that the Church says that the Real Presence remains in the leftovers? It seems to mean (to my naive ears) that Jesus is trapped in a wafer. Lutheran theology states quite clearly that the Real Presence is a theocentric belief: it's about Christ's activity in and through the Eucharist. The Supper is a mean (i.e., vehicle, conduit -- and I'm only defining that for the benefit of a couple of newbies who are following this thread, Dix; I know you know what a mean is)of Grace, not a repository of Grace. So, I can't believe that Jesus is stuck there. The only reason He was there Iin the elements) in the first place is because He willed to be there. What does it mean that He would remain locked in a cabinet?

Lutherans (to my knowledge) do not use the word "host" to describe the bread of communion. "Host" seems to imply that the elements contain Christ, in which scenario, the elements are the subject and Christ is the object. In Lutheran theology, Christ is the subject and we are the object: "The Body of Christ, given for you." In parsing the Lord's Supper, the elements are the ablative of means: "given (by means of this bread) for you".

So, what does it mean that Christ would remain in the unconsumed elements? In the Lord's Supper, Jesus is the Head of Household. Remember that when Jesus enters Cleopas's house after the walk on the Road to Emmaus, it is Jesus who does the job of praying and breaking the bread: he turns the situation upside down. It's Cleopas's house, after all. Cleoapas should be the one praying and distirbuting, not Jesus. But no...

Jesus proclaims.
Jesus blesses.
Jesus gives.
And then Jesus leaves.


I did some poking around last night. The earliest references I can find indicate two things.

1. Some bishops would reserve a portion of the elements to send via courier to another diocese, as an act of fellowship with other churches. In this case, however, with the known intent of the reserved elements being a continuation of the sacrament, I see no problem with this. Frankly, I think it's rather beuatiful imagery (more than imagery!), and I'd like to see that practice revived. Actually, in a way I guess it is still alive, since pastors receive communion together at synodical conventions....
2. Hermits would carry with them a portion of the elements in a vial or bottle that they kept strapped to themselves. This served two purposes...1) so that Christ would always be present with them, and 2) as protection against bandits and robbers...i.e., "Good Samaritan in a Bottle".

Number 2 seems "right out" on both counts. Hermeticism is an inherently unchristian activity. We are called to be a family, period. No one is called to go off and spend his life by himself. Sure Jesus spent 40 days in the desert, but he came back. And on the second point, well, Jesus ain't a rabbit's foot. 'Nuff said.

So #1 doesn't apply to the thesis, and #2 is just flat wrong. That's the best I could find in a short time.

Cheers,

Kepler

The Hermit in number 2 is also reminiscient of Relicism. Almost every movie that uses Roman Catholicism (Exorcist, The Order, The Omen) use a manner of seeking grace through a means other than the sacrament. In the case of "The Order" with Heath Ledger, they talked about a "sin-eater" or someone who could consume the sins of another. This completely takes Christ out of the picture as he is the one who consumed and died for our sins.

The Hermit in #2 believes that the vial or bottle holds Christ, but does it really?

 

[KEPLER]

The Hermit in #2 believes that the vial or bottle holds Christ, but does it really?

That's the question!

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Sometimes Lutherans frustrate me...everything gets defined, dissected and parsed practically down to its atomic structure!

Ahh..... the old "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" syndrome. And I mean syndrome...as in SICKNESS . There are no mysteries in the Lutheran Church because our members have a handle on it and seem to want to know God's mind even though God says:

Romans 11:33
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

1 Corinthians 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
18Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

And "no" this doesn't negate the passage that says "my people perish for lack of knowledge". It just means that some aspects of God are unknowable. That's where faith comes into play. duhhhh

 

[AngelusSax]

That depends, Rad... We talking ELCA or non-ELCA? ELCA allows for mysteries still.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

I disagree, we still believe in the Deus Absconditus, we still trust in that which the world calls foolish, we still eat strange food and drink cheap coffee.

 

[KEPLER]

I disagree, we still believe in the Deus Absconditus, we still trust in that which the world calls foolish, we still eat strange food and drink cheap coffee.

Hot Dish + Maxwell House = Consubstantiation

 

[SPALATIN]

If there were no Green Jello, would be be Lutherans?

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

If there were no Green Jello, would be be Lutherans?

A question for the ages...

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

What is the catholic understanding of the issue? I think Qoheleth pointed it out brilliantly. There is no historical concensus that Christ leaves the Eucharistic elements when the distribution of the Sacrament has ended. Zip...nothing. What the Lutherans say (per the prevailing interpretation) is novel.

When the host and wine are used in communion and then taken and given to a "shutin", why is the order of commusnion said again? Makes me think that the sacrement is exactacly that. A sacrement instituted by God as an act on his part that has nothing to do with with any act on our part except the receiving of it. Bread and wine is only body and blood when Jesus imparts himself to it though the sacremental act. When the sacrement is finished it is just bread and wine again.

As I mentioned before, when communion service is finished the wine is taken and thrown on the ground in a special confined area with a cross on it. I think the observance is only becasue it eucharist once was a physical conveyance for His body and blood and not because they are holy recepticles anymore. I think I remember the quote from the BOC stating that the real presence wasn't present anymore.
"For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present." (Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, VII, The Lord's Supper, 15)


OOPs sorry---i just noticed that this is a rehash of some statements made earlier by some of our CF members.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

I disagree, we still believe in the Deus Absconditus, we still trust in that which the world calls foolish, we still eat strange food and drink cheap coffee.

God doesn't appear to be "hidden" according to a lot of people in this forum.

 

[Qoheleth]

Lutherans (to my knowledge) do not use the word "host" to describe the bread of communion. "Host" seems to imply that the elements contain Christ, in which scenario, the elements are the subject and Christ is the object.

This is what I hear every week...




Therefore, O Lord, remembering the blessed passion of the same Christ, Your Son Our Lord, His resurrection from the dead and His glorious ascension into heaven, we Your servants and Your holy people offer to Your most excellent majesty from Your own gifts
bestowed upon us, a pure host, a holy host, a spotless host, the holy bread of eternal life, and the chalice of everlasting salvation.

Be pleased to look upon them with a merciful and serene countenance, and to accept them as You were graciously pleased to accept the gifts of Your righteous servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and the holy sacrifice, the spotless victim, which Your high priest Melcisedech offered to You.

And we beseech You, O Lord, to send down Your Holy Spirit upon these offerings, that He would make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ; and that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, changing them by Your Holy Spirit.






Q

 

[KEPLER]

This is what I hear every week...

Therefore, O Lord, remembering the blessed passion of the same Christ, Your Son Our Lord, His resurrection from the dead and His glorious ascension into heaven, we Your servants and Your holy people offer to Your most excellent majesty from Your own gifts
bestowed upon us, a pure host, a holy host, a spotless host, the holy bread of eternal life, and the chalice of everlasting salvation.

Be pleased to look upon them with a merciful and serene countenance, and to accept them as You were graciously pleased to accept the gifts of Your righteous servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and the holy sacrifice, the spotless victim, which Your high priest Melcisedech offered to You.

And we beseech You, O Lord, to send down Your Holy Spirit upon these offerings, that He would make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ; and that which is in this cup the precious Blood of Your Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, changing them by Your Holy Spirit.

Q

This is why using phrases like "to my knowledge" and words like "seems" are good. They keep me from looking like a complete idiot.

Now, Q, which liturgy is that from?

K

 

[Qoheleth]

Now, Q, which liturgy is that from?

Here ya go...

http://www.ziondetroit.org/publications/ordinary2005.pdf


Q

 

[LutherNut]

Here ya go...

http://www.ziondetroit.org/publications/ordinary2005.pdf


Q

As I was reading the liturgy I was rather intrigued. There were a few places that I felt strayed a bit close to Romanism, but were not opposed to Lutheran theology. I loved the reverence displayed in everything.

But I was completely turned off when I read the Words of Institution invoked as part of a prayer. Prayer is a sacrificial act of worship, eminating from us to God. The words of the Verba are the words of Christ spoken to us, not the other way around. The praying of the Verba turns the Sacrament into a Sacrifice and that is VERY Romanist!

My initial thought was that this was from one of the Evangelical Catholic synods, but I was shocked to find out that this is an LCMS congregation. This is not at all what the LCMS holds, teaches, and confesses conerning the Lord's Supper. What started out as something great and something I'd like to see more of in the Lutheran Church quickly became a Roman Catholic Mass, something we don't need in the Lutheran Church.

 

[porterross]

........I've never seen anything like that, either.......

 

[ByzantineDixie]

By implicit, I mean asking of the theological point, "what is it for?" or "what does this mean?"

IOW, "what does it mean" that the Church says that the Real Presence remains in the leftovers? It seems to mean (to my naive ears) that Jesus is trapped in a wafer. ... What does it mean that He would remain locked in a cabinet?

Here's the problem...the whole torturous path of trying to identify "when He is" and "when He isn't" based on a theological analysis. Why go down that path? The only reason the Lutherans went there is because of the Roman abuses.

Let's break this down a bit...suppose a Catholic priest puts a consecrated host in a monstrance and processes it about in what the Lutherans (and the Orthodox) would call an inappropriate use. After the processing, the priest removes the host and takes it to a shut-in. In the Lutheran understanding Christ was there before the processing, left during the processing and did He come back later for the poor shut in?

In the Orthodox church the elements are always consumed at some point. So Christ is always there...no debate, no dispute...just Christ being exactly where He promises to be. And if there is an abuse...there is an abuse...not a whole change in theology.

(One example of this...the communicants used to smuggle the Body of Christ out of the service and take it home to put on their home altars. This was an abuse so to stop the abuse the Orthodox now distribute both the Body and Blood of Christ together on a spoon to each communicant...removing the opportunity to pocket the elements and take them home. Note...they could have come up with an elaborate theological theory saying that when one removes the Body of Christ from the actual service Christ is no longer present, the bread is just bread...but they didn't. That would have been innovative. They just stopped the abuse.)

Christ trapped? Oh man...my former DCE used that language on me. In my estimation...yes...trapped in the sense that He always is where He says He will be because His is completely and utterly trustworthy. And He didn't say and the church never believed (until Luther) 'if you take my Body and process it I will flee'.

I did some poking around last night. The earliest references I can find indicate two things.

1. Some bishops would reserve a portion of the elements to send via courier to another diocese, as an act of fellowship with other churches. In this case, however, with the known intent of the reserved elements being a continuation of the sacrament, I see no problem with this. Frankly, I think it's rather beuatiful imagery (more than imagery!), and I'd like to see that practice revived. Actually, in a way I guess it is still alive, since pastors receive communion together at synodical conventions....

While I agree with the understanding of the continuation of the sacrament...I take a strong exception that "our intent" defines or otherwise puts restrictions on a sacrament.

1. Hermits would carry with them a portion of the elements in a vial or bottle that they kept strapped to themselves. This served two purposes...1) so that Christ would always be present with them, and 2) as protection against bandits and robbers...i.e., "Good Samaritan in a Bottle".

Number 2 seems "right out" on both counts. Hermeticism is an inherently unchristian activity. We are called to be a family, period. No one is called to go off and spend his life by himself. Sure Jesus spent 40 days in the desert, but he came back. And on the second point, well, Jesus ain't a rabbit's foot. 'Nuff said.

So #1 doesn't apply to the thesis, and #2 is just flat wrong. That's the best I could find in a short time.

Well, as you might expect, you and I will disagree about Hermaticism and I don't want to cloud this discussion with that subject. Perhaps another time?

I haven't done my research yet...too busy on this end. The last weeks of Lent are challenging.

 

[SPALATIN]

Christ trapped? Oh man...my former DCE used that language on me. In my estimation...yes...trapped in the sense that He always is where He says He will be because His is completely and utterly trustworthy. And He didn't say and the church never believed (until Luther) 'if you take my Body and process it I will flee'.

While I agree with the understanding of the continuation of the sacrament...I take a strong exception that "our intent" defines or otherwise puts restrictions on a sacrament.



Well, as you might expect, you and I will disagree about Hermaticism and I don't want to cloud this discussion with that subject. Perhaps another time?

I haven't done my research yet...too busy on this end. The last weeks of Lent are challenging.

First of all no one should ever take an understanding of anything scriptural from a DCE. Their education doesn't include deep theological studies. If anything they are the least qualified to teach our youth anything to do with scripture and the Bible.

In my opinion, DCE's should be required to take 2 years of Seminary type classes if they are going to teach. But I hear that the LCMS may be fazing that program out of the colleges. The Deaconess program is picking up steam and they do get a seminary education.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Yep our previous DCE was allmost elevated to the position like an assitant pastor (Perform liturgical services, baptisms, counceling etc.) until he had a torid affair with a female parishinor and got fired.

What does that have to do with anything? Nothing, I guess other than he was promoted to the level of his incompetency

 

[SPALATIN]

Yep our previous DCE was allmost elevated to the position like an assitant pastor (Perform liturgical services, baptisms, counceling etc.) until he had a torid affair with a female parishinor and got fired.

What does that have to do with anything? Nothing, I guess other than he was promoted to the level of his incompetency

The minute that the DCE began to do Baptisms should have been when someone contacted the Synod office and informed them of what was happening.

DCE's have a BA in Christian Education and nothing else. They do not have any authority to conduct any kind of service that the Pastor should be doing.

Baptisms are part of the OHM, unless it is an emergency and then the head of house can do it if the Pastor is not available. The DCE is not an elder or Pastor and is a hired worker in the church.

The fact that he later was caught in a torrid affair is not indicative of all DCEs though.

 

[LutherNut]

The Deaconess program is picking up steam and they do get a seminary education.

NOW they get a seminary education. This just started within the past few years that Deaconesses had the opportunity for a seminary based MA program.

My guess is that the LCMS finally got tired of the heretical Deaconesses coming out of Valpo!!