Eucharistic Adoration

[LutheranHawkeye]

So I was thinking the other day about eucharistic adoration and it doesn't seem contrary to scripture sort of like rosary beads. I know, too much Roman Catholic stuff in one sentence, but when did the Lutheran Church scrap Eucharistic Adoration and for what reason? I can't think of any reason we got rid of it, except maybe to seem more protestant. I can only find one source on this though and I haven't found a full version to read: Martin Luther's treatise on Eucharistic Adoration.

 

[BabyLutheran]

I was explained to that it sometimes turns into worshiping the elements instead of worshiping Jesus

 

[Protoevangel]

We had a thread on this a couple of years ago here in TCL. I'll see if I can dig it up.

...If Christ is present, who would not worship Him?

On the other hand, something Lutherans and Orthodox would agree on, Christ said, "take, eat" not "keep, store, worship". So the "perpetual adoration" is right out.

 

[DaRev]

Christ said "Take, eat, this is My body." He gave us His body and blood in the Sacrament to eat and to drink, not to worhip and adore. The Sacrament is given to us for our benefit. The very nature of a Sacrament is something that comes from God to us for our good. What good comes to us in worhiping or praying to the elements? Prayer and worship on our part is sacrificial, not sacramental. Such acts constitute misuse of what Christ gives to us. This is explained very well in the Confessions.

 

[Protoevangel]

Christ said "Take, eat, this is My body." He gave us His body and blood in the Sacrament to eat and to drink, not to worhip and adore. The Sacrament is given to us for our benefit. The very nature of a Sacrament is something that comes from God to us for our good. What good comes to us in worhiping or praying to the elements? Prayer and worship on our part is sacrificial, not sacramental. Such acts constitute misuse of what Christ gives to us. This is explained very well in the Confessions.

Like this?:

...Likewise, when it is taught that the elements or the visible species or forms of the consecrated bread and wine must be adored. However, no one, unless he be an Arian heretic, can and will deny that Christ Himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper, should be adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the same, as also in all other places, especially where His congregation is assembled." (Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, VII, The Lord's Supper, 112, 126)

 

[Protoevangel]

The early Lutheran Reformers, and the Book of Concord certainly took a strong stance against the reservation of the elements for the purpose of adoration, but I'm not so sure that they would have disapproved of adoring the Eucharist, in the proper setting. Take for instance these quotes by Luther and Chemnitz:

"But he who does believe, as sufficient demonstration has shown it ought to be believed, can surely not withhold his adoration of the body and blood of Christ without sinning. For I must always confess that Christ is present when his body and blood are present."
- Martin Luther (Luther's Works - American Edition, 36:294).

"In the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is deserving of honor and adoration, the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, proffered and received both by the worthy and by the unworthy"
- Martin Luther, AE 34:355

" ... 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."
- Luther's Works 36

"...as long as Christ remains sacramentally present, worship, reverence and adoration are appropriate."
- Martin Luther, The Adoration of the Sacrament of the Holy Body of Christ (LW 36, 269-305)

"If Christ is truly present in the Bread, why should He not be treated with the utmost respect and even be adored?" Joachim, a friend, added: "We saw how Luther bowed low at the Elevation with great devotion and reverently worshiped Christ." "
- Mathesius, Table Talk, Leipzig, 1903, 341

"Our dispute with the papalists is about their reserving, shutting in, carrying about, and displaying the consecrated bread for worship and adoration, apart from distribution and reception."
- Chemnitz, in his Examination of the Council of Trent, (vol. 2, p. 301)

 

[RadMan]

hmmmm......... now I'm confused. I found more references in BoC. I'll read them in context later on.

40] 19. That the external visible elements of the bread and wine should be adored in the Holy Sacrament.

AUGUSTINE, Of the Words of the Lord, Discourse 58 (t. 10, pp. 217. 218): “I indeed adore the Lord’s
flesh, yea, the perfect humanity in Christ, for the reason that it has been assumed by the divinity and
united to Deity, and I confess not that there are two different persons, but that the one and the same Son
of God is God and man. In a word, if you separate man from God, I never believe nor serve Him.”

 

[Protoevangel]

hmmmm......... now I'm confused. I found more references in BoC. I'll read them in context later on.

40] 19. That the external visible elements of the bread and wine should be adored in the Holy Sacrament.

Yes, that's a rejection in the Epitome,

"... we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles ... That the external visible elements of the bread and wine should be adored..."
- Epitome of the Formula of Concord, VII, The Lord's Supper, 21, 40

Taken alone, out of context, that certainly seems to seal the deal. But the Solid Declaration (as already quoted) fleshes out the Reformer's line of thinking:

"we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading ... Likewise, when it is taught that the elements or the visible species or forms of the consecrated bread and wine must be adored. However, no one, unless he be an Arian heretic, can and will deny that Christ Himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper, should be adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the same, as also in all other places, especially where His congregation is assembled."
- Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, VII, The Lord's Supper, 112, 126

So, where is the middle ground, that does not contradict either statement? I think the Reformer's extra-Confessional quotes in Post # 6 above provide some context to answer that question.

So, what's my point? Only that I don't think the Lutheran Reformers forbade it, but instead, they rejected the Roman innovations of reserving the Sacrament for the purpose of worship.

What Lutherans teach now, may or may not differ.

 

[DaRev]

Like this?:

...Likewise, when it is taught that the elements or the visible species or forms of the consecrated bread and wine must be adored. However, no one, unless he be an Arian heretic, can and will deny that Christ Himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper, should be adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the same, as also in all other places, especially where His congregation is assembled." (Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, VII, The Lord's Supper, 112, 126)

This from the FoC Epitome:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]21] On the other hand, we unanimously reject and condemn all the following erroneous articles, which are opposed and contrary to the doctrine presented above, the simple faith, and the [pure] confession concerning the Lord's Supper; [/FONT]
40] 19. That the external visible elements of the bread and wine should be adored in the Holy Sacrament.
[/FONT]

I think that states pretty clear.

 

[Protoevangel]

This from the FoC Epitome:

Already covered that in the above post.

I think that states pretty clear.

Especially when you don't mind contradictions in your "confessional" documents.

 

[DaRev]

Already covered that in the above post.


Especially when you don't mind contradictions in your "confessional" documents.

There's no contradiction there at all. There's a HUGE difference between adoring the elements, as is done in Eucharistic Adoration, and adoring Christ Himself in the context of the Mass. HUGE difference.

 

[Protoevangel]

There's no contradiction there at all. There's a HUGE difference between adoring the elements, as is done in Eucharistic Adoration, and adoring Christ Himself in the context of the Mass. HUGE difference.

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand your position now. If you are defining Eucharistic Adoration as the Papists do (worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass; i.e. reserved in a tabernacle, monstrance, ostensorium or the ciborium), I would have to completely agree with you. But I doubt that was the intended context of the OP. I believe NordicLutheran was asking about Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament. NL, please correct me if I am wrong.

Many people look at the keywords used by Rome, and assign Roman meanings. I, on the other hand, saw a Lutheran asking the question, and assumed a Lutheran, not a Roman context. Sorry if I was wrong in that.

To the best of my knowledge, the Papist Eucharistic Adoration would be impossible in the Lutheran Church, as storing the host for that purpose would not be part of the "action" of the Sacrament, and you would not claim Christ was even present. Isn't that so?

 

[LutheranMafia]

I was explained to that it sometimes turns into worshiping the elements instead of worshiping Jesus

You mean they worship the bread? I know this is a serious topic, but I can't help but picture the Pillsbury dough boy in this context…[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[DaRev]

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand your position now. If you are defining Eucharistic Adoration as the Papists do (worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass; i.e. reserved in a tabernacle, monstrance, ostensorium or the ciborium), I would have to completely agree with you. But I doubt that was the intended context of the OP. I believe NordicLutheran was asking about Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament. NL, please correct me if I am wrong.

Many people look at the keywords used by Rome, and assign Roman meanings. I, on the other hand, saw a Lutheran asking the question, and assumed a Lutheran, not a Roman context. Sorry if I was wrong in that.

To the best of my knowledge, the Papist Eucharistic Adoration would be impossible in the Lutheran Church, as storing the host for that purpose would not be part of the "action" of the Sacrament, and you would not claim Christ was even present. Isn't that so?

The "Eucharistic Adoration" (if you want to use that term although I wouldn't) in a Lutheran context would refer to the worship of Christ by the act of receiving the Lord's Supper in the Mass. The term "Eucharistic Adoration" is reserved to the veneration of the host which is forbidden in the Confessions.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

To the best of my knowledge, the Papist Eucharistic Adoration would be impossible in the Lutheran Church, as storing the host for that purpose would not be part of the "action" of the Sacrament, and you would not claim Christ was even present. Isn't that so?

Once Consecrated, we do not know when and if Christ's body and blood cease to be present with the bread and wine. Scripture is silent regarding this. So, while we do not adore or venerate the consecrated elements, we do however handle and treat them with respect as was Christ's body when it was taken down from the cross, and prepared for burial. Pastor consumes the remaining wine in the chalice, and also the remaining consecrated host. The elder of the day consumes the remaining wine in the individual cups. The remaining wine in the flagon is put in a separate bottle, not poured back in with un-consecrated wine.

I believe Luther said regarding the consecrated elements "it is what it is".

Mark

 

[Protoevangel]

You mean they worship the bread? I know this is a serious topic, but I can't help but picture the Pillsbury dough boy in this context…

That actually sounds more like a "Reformed" stylized accusation. Even with all of their errors, not even the RCC worship the bread "instead of" Christ (in intent; in heart, anyway).

 

[Protoevangel]

The "Eucharistic Adoration" (if you want to use that term although I wouldn't) in a Lutheran context would refer to the worship of Christ by the act of receiving the Lord's Supper in the Mass. The term "Eucharistic Adoration" is reserved to the veneration of the host which is forbidden in the Confessions.

Then it all comes down to what NL actually intended to ask about.

 

[DaRev]

Once Consecrated, we do not know when and if Christ's body and blood cease to be present with the bread and wine. Scripture is silent regarding this. So, while we do not adore or venerate the consecrated elements, we do however handle and treat them with respect as was Christ's body when it was taken down from the cross, and prepared for burial. Pastor consumes the remaining wine in the chalice, and also the remaining consecrated host. The elder of the day consumes the remaining wine in the individual cups. The remaining wine in the flagon is put in a separate bottle, not poured back in with un-consecrated wine.

I believe Luther said regarding the consecrated elements "it is what it is".

Mark

I follow the same procedure as you mentioned except any left over host is retained in the ciborium to be used at the next Mass. I haven't yet been able to convince the altar guild to more closely count out the hosts prior to setting up for service, thus there are times when there's a lot left over.

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

OK, I think I'm beginning to understand your position now. If you are defining Eucharistic Adoration as the Papists do (worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass; i.e. reserved in a tabernacle, monstrance, ostensorium or the ciborium), I would have to completely agree with you. But I doubt that was the intended context of the OP. I believe NordicLutheran was asking about Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament. NL, please correct me if I am wrong.

Many people look at the keywords used by Rome, and assign Roman meanings. I, on the other hand, saw a Lutheran asking the question, and assumed a Lutheran, not a Roman context. Sorry if I was wrong in that.

To the best of my knowledge, the Papist Eucharistic Adoration would be impossible in the Lutheran Church, as storing the host for that purpose would not be part of the "action" of the Sacrament, and you would not claim Christ was even present. Isn't that so?

Actually I was referring to Eucharistic Adoration outside of the Divine Service. Martin Luther agreed with this in his treatise on Eucharistic Adoration no? Seriously some of you are starting to sound like Melanchthonists...I thought we were Lutherans. And thanks for answering some of my question Protoevangel.

 

[Protoevangel]

Actually I was referring to Eucharistic Adoration outside of the Divine Service. Martin Luther agreed with this in his treatise on Eucharistic Adoration no? Seriously some of you are starting to sound like Melanchthonists...I thought we were Lutherans. And thanks for answering some of my question Protoevangel.

No problem dude.