Eucharistic Adoration (Lutherans only please)

[ctobola]

To some extent yes, but what of those whom are sick or handicapped in which the Pastor must visit their homes and give them the sacrament there. Where is community in that? They are not with the community when they take the sacrament and the pastor can not take it with them as he does not have someone to serve him. Jesus gave his disciples this sacrament before his work was completed and now we take it after his work has been accomplished so in effect it is by the work already done for us.

Scott,
Scripturally and as a Lutheran, I see community defined on the basis of "wherever two or more are gathered in My name." As the pastor and the invalid gather in his name, all the requirements have been met as far as I can see.

In Christ, -Cloy

 

[gtsecc]

Would Lutherans ever have Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament - Monstrance, Gauntlets, Humeral veil, etc....???????????//

 

[The Princess Bride]

Is the Eucharist worthy of adoration? Yes, it is the Body and Blood of Christ.

I would not say that I "adore" the Eucharist/Communion, but I do hold a high esteem for it, being how it is to be more than a mere symbolism of Christ's Flesh and Blood.

Is it appropriate to set aside a portion for adoration? No. Christ said, 'Take, eat.' and 'Take, drink.' The Eucharist is given to us as a means of grace. Its purpose is to be consumed. Note that this is why in Orthodoxy the Body and Blood are mixed together before being offer to the people.

A "Means of GRACE" wow....that really hit me. How true that is!

"My GRACE is sufficient for thee" (cant remember the verse!).

What is awesome, is when people are healed while taking of the Sacrements.​

 

[SPALATIN]

Scott,
Scripturally and as a Lutheran, I see community defined on the basis of "wherever two or more are gathered in My name." As the pastor and the invalid gather in his name, all the requirements have been met as far as I can see.

In Christ, -Cloy

Reverse that equation. Church first and community second. I see this as a vast difference between ELCA and LCMS. We would reject your Ex opere operato/operantis as being too Calvinistic.

Your Lutheran is more Melanchthon than Luther.

 

[AngelusSax]

Church first and community second.

Guess that explains Jesus stressing community and hospitality to the "outsiders" so much more than back-patting of those already in the fold...

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Would Lutherans ever have Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament - Monstrance, Gauntlets, Humeral veil, etc....???????????//

The Lutheran Reformation was a deeply conservative movement. It seems likely that Lutherans might have done this sort of thing although I am not at all sure that it is as common within the German-Scandinavian cultural tradition so much as in the mediterranean and elsewhere, so I am not sure.

It seems highly unlikely for American Lutherans except some of the more self-consciously high church types.

 

[SPALATIN]

Guess that explains Jesus stressing community and hospitality to the "outsiders" so much more than back-patting of those already in the fold...

What is stresses is that Church is the community. The community is not necessarily the church. Those in the outer community are always welcome to come to the church and hear the word which is efficacious in and of itself to bring salvation to those who need to hear it.

Though it is a small community it's commission is that of Matthew 28:19. We in the LCMS don't commune everyone unless they do believe that Christ is in the elements. Can you say that about all of the ELCA congregations? Or is it true that they would commune all even though only a small number would actually believe in the Real presence and let God work it all out.

We just take a greater responsibility in how communion is administered. Reformed churches do NOT accept the idea of the Real Presence and to commune with them is unionistic and to some degree syncretistic.

 

[AngelusSax]

Those in the outer community are always welcome to come to the church and hear the word which is efficacious in and of itself to bring salvation to those who need to hear it.

The church either goes out to the community to evangelize, or it sins against the Christ it says it serves, unrepentantly.

Or is it true that they would commune all even though only a small number would actually believe in the Real presence and let God work it all out.

If stated belief and understanding is necessary for a Sacrament to be valid, then the Baptists are right, and we need to stop baptizing infants right the hell now, and all our infant baptisms to date have been and are invalid.

 

[SPALATIN]

The church either goes out to the community to evangelize, or it sins against the Christ it says it serves, unrepentantly.



If stated belief and understanding is necessary for a Sacrament to be valid, then the Baptists are right, and we need to stop baptizing infants right the hell now, and all our infant baptisms to date have been and are invalid.

You are correct. If stated belief and understanding were necessary for a Sacrament to be valid we would be like the Baptists. Of course they don't consider Communion to be a Sacrament. In fact, Baptists don't call Baptism a sacrament at all.

When we go to the Communion rail we go confessing that we all agree on the Real presence of Christ in the Bread and Wine. If someone comes to the table and does not confess this understanding they are taking it to their judgement..

 

[Edial]

You are correct. If stated belief and understanding were necessary for a Sacrament to be valid we would be like the Baptists. Of course they don't consider Communion to be a Sacrament. In fact, Baptists don't call Baptism a sacrament at all.

...

Actually the Baptists do call Baptism a Sacrament.

They confess to having two Sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[BigNorsk]

I have a citation but would be interested in what Luther said, and I don't have a copy of Luther's Works. If anyone does, I would be most appreciative if they would post what he said.

The reference is Luther's Works 36:278, 291, 295

Marv

 

[ByzantineDixie]

I have a citation but would be interested in what Luther said, and I don't have a copy of Luther's Works. If anyone does, I would be most appreciative if they would post what he said.

The reference is Luther's Works 36:278, 291, 295

Marv

I'll tell you what...I'll put up the text from these pages but you have to pick out the portion of the page you want to use to make your point!!!

Here is page 278:

But where this is not the case, no other kind of preaching will help; there will continue to be nothing but an outward dissembling with respect to the sacrament, with bowing, bending, kneeling, and adoring, but without any spirit or faith.
But the honor which is to be accorded the Word is of two kinds. One kind is external, as when a person writes [its] words with big, beautiful, glowing gold or silver letters, lays it away in beautiful silk cloths, and carefully preserves it. It is external honor also when one cries them aloud and sings them in stately fashion—or out of respect keeps them secret, the un-Christian practice that formerly prevailed. But God and his Word do not care about such childish external honor.
The proper way to honor the Word is to fix it in your heart. The heart is its real gilded ciborium. You accord the Word more precious honor with your heart, than if you were to build a ciborium for the sacrament out of pure gold or the most costly jewels. For it is certainly true that you can have life, righteousness, and salvation without the sacrament, but you cannot have life, righteousness, and salvation without the Word, even though you were to receive the sacrament not only three times a day (as the priests do at Christmas)9 but even three times an hour.
Now when I say that you should fix the Word of God in your heart I do not mean merely that you should know it and meditate on it. That is nothing. I mean rather that you should regard and esteem it as it ought to be regarded and esteemed. That is, you should hold it to be a living, eternal, all-powerful Word that can make you alive, free from sin and death, and keep you so eternally; that brings with it everything of which it speaks, namely, Christ with his flesh and blood and everything that he is and has. For it is the kind of Word that can and does do all these things, and therefore it should be so regarded. That is its own proper honor. It is not satisfied with any other kind of honor. In short, the proper honor for the Word is nothing else than a genuine faith from the bottom of one’s heart, a faith that holds the Word to be true, that trusts it and stakes its life upon it for eternity.​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=23179752#_ftn29 The number of times a priest was to celebrate mass in any given clay was variously prescribed in various periods. Permission to celebrate three times on Christmas had already been attested by Walafrid Strabo (circa 808–849). Georg Rietschel, Lehrbuch der Liturgik (Berlin, 1900), I, 352.

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=23179752#_ftnref2Luther, M. (1999, c1959). Vol. 36: Luther's works, vol. 36 : Word and Sacrament II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

And page 291:

But hitherto one could worship only in Jerusalem, or at least facing Jerusalem, no matter what part of the world he was in.”
Now where outward worship is all alone, there is downright hypocrisy and actual mockery of God. There our Lord receives the same kind of honor as that which the Jews gave him when during his Passion they knelt before him and said: “Hail, King of the Jews” [Matt. 27:29]. For when there is no spiritual worship, it cannot be meant earnestly and it does not come from the heart. And if it does not come from the heart, it is certainly a mockery of God. Alas, this kind of worship fills the whole world today in all its corners. The mockery is now in full swing which the Jews began during Christ’s Passion when they called him the “King of the Jews.” For there are so many churches and services of divine worship on every hand, and yet there is scarcely one in a thousand who honor God with spiritual worship. Instead they all mock him with the outward, hypocritical worship. And this mockery of Christ takes place especially in all the masses and in the monstrance at Easter19 and on Corpus Christi day.20 For at those times he receives great outward honor, but it is pure mockery because it is without faith.
Therefore, where there is no faith and spiritual worship, it is better to stay far away. And one should not celebrate mass where there are no real and genuine Christians. Until such Christians are present one should abandon the monstrances and the Corpus Christi processions,21 because there is no need for them; they serve no useful purpose and they only dishonor the sacrament with gross hypocrisy and mockery. Moreover, the monasteries and foundations of charity should be provided with believing priests and monks, or else they should be dissolved. For their chief work is mere outward worship and they think they have accomplished their purpose if they do a lot of outward kneeling, bending, and bowing. And the pope has assigned indulgences22 to such processions and honoring of the sacrament, and so has filled the world with Jews who worship Christ in mockery [Matt. 27:29].​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=23179752#_ftn519 Cf. p. 249 n. 12.

20 Cf. p. 181 n. 42.

21 The processions associated with this festival, which involved a displaying of the consecrated host for purposes of adoration, though not mentioned in the bull of Urban IV (d. 1264) which decreed the Corpus Christi observance (Transiturus, September 8, 1264), were nonetheless of early origin, being endowed with indulgences by Popes Martin V (d. 1431) and Eugene IV (d 1447). Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., IV, 391.

22 Ibid.

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=23179752#_ftnref5Luther, M. (1999, c1959). Vol. 36: Luther's works, vol. 36 : Word and Sacrament II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

 

[ByzantineDixie]

And page 295:

For that reason we say now that one should not condemn people or accuse them of heresy if they do not adore the sacrament, for there is no command to that effect and it is not for that purpose that Christ is present. Just as we read that the apostles did not adore the sacrament since they were sitting and eating at table [Matt. 26:20, 26]. On the other hand, one should not condemn and accuse of heresy people who do adore the sacrament. For although Christ has not commanded it, neither has he forbidden it, but often accepted it. Free, free it must be, according as one is disposed in his heart and has opportunity. Therefore both parties are to be blamed when they take a stand on either of these two sides and quarrel over this matter and condemn one another, and both of them miss the middle way. The first group would like to compel people not to adore the sacrament, as if Christ were not there at all; and the other group would like to compel people to adore it, as if Christ’s state of glory were in the sacrament as it is in heaven.
With this kind of quarreling they both get off the track, so that they emphasize the sacrament and neglect the words. The sacrament then becomes a mere work and faith perishes. For while they busy themselves trying to decide how they may properly honor Christ and do him abundant service, they never do get around to considering what he does for them in the sacrament and why he is there and what they are supposed to receive from him, just as if he were there solely for the sake of their worship and service. We have it backwards when in the sacrament we think only of the works that we ourselves might do and accomplish for the sacrament, and pay no attention to the works that the sacrament is supposed to do and accomplish for us.
And so I repeat what I have said above,24 that a person should note carefully these two things in the sacrament: first, the Word; and second, the bread and wine. The words teach you to give thought and attention to why Christ is present; they will cause you to forget your work and to wait only upon his. For a sacrament is a matter of faith, because in it only the works of God proceed and are effected—through his Word! Therefore, those who consider the sacrament to be thus in the Word will forget both worship and adoration. That is what the apostles did at the Supper [Matt. 26:26] and yet without any doubt they were most acceptable and did him the proper honor.​

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=23179752#_ftn224 Cf. pp. 277–278.

http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=23179752#_ftnref2Luther, M. (1999, c1959). Vol. 36: Luther's works, vol. 36 : Word and Sacrament II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

 

[Protoevangel]

I have a citation...

...you have to pick out the portion of the page you want to use to make your point!!!

It wouldn't be this, would it?

"On the other hand, one should not condemn and accuse of heresy people who do adore the sacrament. For although Christ has not commanded it, neither has he forbidden it, but often accepted it. Free, free it must be, according as one is disposed in his heart and has opportunity."

Remember, all I was asking is if it were appropriate, you know, acceptable... I don't think anyone suggested it was... required. Can I, in faith, be free in Christian Liberty, adore the Sacrament, worship it, in fact? For many, the answer was no, I was judged to be an idolater to worship Christ in his very real presence.

I mean, Christian liberty was going to be the point, right?

 

[BeachBlonde]

I am so close to the first answer. I have always felt that the eucharist is as close to Christ as I will be on this earth. Yes,He did want us to adore Him.

 

[Edial]

It wouldn't be this, would it?

"On the other hand, one should not condemn and accuse of heresy people who do adore the sacrament. For although Christ has not commanded it, neither has he forbidden it, but often accepted it. Free, free it must be, according as one is disposed in his heart and has opportunity."

Remember, all I was asking is if it were appropriate, you know, acceptable... I don't think anyone suggested it was... required. Can I, in faith, be free in Christian Liberty, adore the Sacrament, worship it, in fact? For many, the answer was no, I was judged to be an idolater to worship Christ in his very real presence.

I mean, Christian liberty was going to be the point, right?

Dan, but if you do not pray to the Sacrament should you worship it?
Yet we pray to God who is unseen.

Isn't this what it's all about?

Sacramental theology, as any other theology can easily take sudden turns. Should we not identify these turns and reflect them againsy the Scriptures?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[SPALATIN]

It wouldn't be this, would it?

"On the other hand, one should not condemn and accuse of heresy people who do adore the sacrament. For although Christ has not commanded it, neither has he forbidden it, but often accepted it. Free, free it must be, according as one is disposed in his heart and has opportunity."

Remember, all I was asking is if it were appropriate, you know, acceptable... I don't think anyone suggested it was... required. Can I, in faith, be free in Christian Liberty, adore the Sacrament, worship it, in fact? For many, the answer was no, I was judged to be an idolater to worship Christ in his very real presence.

I mean, Christian liberty was going to be the point, right?

Which is why I voted Other. I wanted to investigate it further before putting out a decision one way or another. If it is a matter of Christian Liberty as you say then I don't have a problem with doing it. The unique thing about this is we are not worshipping the elements but what is in the elements after consecration.

I am still undecided about the importance of it and I will stay that way as long as I am in seminary. In fact, this will be a great question to bring up in classes.

 

[porterross]

The unique thing about this is we are not worshipping the elements but what is in the elements after consecration.

This is exactly how I perceive it.
How much more sacred can anything be other than the Flesh and Blood of Christ who sacrificed everything for the likes of me so that I can spend eternity in the presence of our heavenly Father?
When I receive Communion now it is all I can do to keep from weeping in recognition of this Truth. I hardly see that as idolatry.

 

[KEPLER]

Sorry for the delay, Dix. We had such a beautiful weekend here that I had to spend as much time outside enjoying God's creation as I could....

Now, Kep, you know I have to ask then..."what does this mean?" That Christ left the elements and then came back when the words of institution were spoken again?

Well, in between planting, mowing and pruning, I had a little time...so I got out my Spiritual Slideruler and my Christ Calculator, and I came up with this:

​

where sigma is the half-life of the Real Presence, as determined by the Divinity of Christ mutlitplied by the square root of the Incarnation (Chi + Rho) divided by the radius of any given communion wafer multiplied by pi, which is that magic greek number thingy used in baking the aformementioned wafers.

Or, in non-mathematical terms, I don't know. Personally (nothing dogamtic about what I'm about to say), I tend to think that as soon as we (the congregation) stop seeking Christ in the bread and wine (i.e., after receiving communion), He is no longer there. As Luther said (Paraphrasing), "We don't look for Christ in this rock, or up that tree, becasue He never promised to be there." He promised that the bread and wine are His body and blood. Once we have received, His presence is in us. I am not suggesting that His presence is a function of our seeking. I am suggesting that when we are "not seeking" He is not found.

Trying to figure out whther there is any Jesus remaining in the leftovers sounds a LOT (to me) like the Calvinists who try to figure out how much of the Atonement is distributed to each believer...it's in limited quantities after all, so we need to make sure every one gets only his or her fair share. (And yes, I know that's a caricature of the Reformed...but it's not actually that far off...)

//off-topic

Brief Historical Diversion: There actually was a guy named John Craig who wrote a book in the late 1690s called Theologiae Christianae principia mathematica in which he came up with a mathematical formula to demonstrate that Christ's return was a function of the believability of the gospels: i.e., as man became more "enlightened" and less theologically credulous, the return of Christ approached closer.

//on-topic

I was under the impression the words were respoken for the purpose of the individual receiving...that he/she would not doubt...not that there was a need to bring Christ back to the elements. Would you agree?

That is indeed why the words are re-spoken: so that the person receiving may know that Christ is truly present in the bread and wine. Beyond that, I cannot speak.

Cheers

Kepler