"In, With, and Under" the bread and wine

[zippy2006]

My 2 cents:

It is truly Christ's very Body and Blood on the Altar and in the hands of the priest/pastor. Christ instructed us to eat and to drink it for the forgiveness of our sins.

So shouldn't we consume all the elements? Just as we would reject Rome's Eucharistic Adoration because they do not follow Christ's command to eat and drink, so too should we not reject the reservation of consecrated elements? The Pastor and his assistants can finish what remains on the Altar after all have communed. And then, there is no problem about what to do with the "extra" of Christ's body and blood. Problem solved.

I'm confused. Why is a decision to reserve the bread/wine (or not) a theological issue? What does the RCC do?

In the Catholic and Eastern Churches the consecrated elements are reserved primarily as a way to continue the ancient practice of carrying them to the sick who were unable to attend the Mass and to be ready for emergency situations (such as receiving the Eucharist before death).

Why is a decision to reserve the bread/wine (or not) a theological issue?

It seems that it is a theological issue because it is based on theological premises, namely whether Christ remains present in the elements after the service has ended.

 

[AMM]

In the Catholic and Eastern Churches the consecrated elements are reserved primarily as a way to continue the ancient practice of carrying them to the sick who were unable to attend the Mass and to be ready for emergency situations (such as receiving the Eucharist before death).

I believe in such a situation, we would simply consecrate elements anew. (i.e., the priest/pastor would use unconsecrated elements and then speak the Words of Institution in the presence of the sick person, etc.) That said, I've never witnessed this firsthand, so I'm not certain. I hadn't considered that line of reasoning though.

 

[zippy2006]

I believe in such a situation, we would simply consecrate elements anew. (i.e., the priest/pastor would use unconsecrated elements and then speak the Words of Institution in the presence of the sick person, etc.) That said, I've never witnessed this firsthand, so I'm not certain. I hadn't considered that line of reasoning though.

That is a possible solution. In the Catholic Church with parishes of thousands of families laypersons are appointed to carry the body of Christ to those who are sick. Of course the priest can do some sick-calls, but it would be hard for him to do them all.

 

[Resha Caner]

In the Catholic and Eastern Churches the consecrated elements are reserved primarily as a way to continue the ancient practice of carrying them to the sick who were unable to attend the Mass and to be ready for emergency situations (such as receiving the Eucharist before death).

Is the Eucharist administered by lay people in these situations?

It seems that it is a theological issue because it is based on theological premises, namely whether Christ remains present in the elements after the service has ended.

I can ask all kinds of questions about the elements of the Eucharist. That doesn't automatically make them theological questions. Why is it necessary to know this?

 

[Resha Caner]

That is a possible solution. In the Catholic Church with parishes of thousands of families laypersons are appointed to carry the body of Christ to those who are sick. Of course the priest can do some sick-calls, but it would be hard for him to do them all.

I read this after my post. I see that you've basically answered my questions. I believe, then, that it comes down to a difference in how we view the pastoral office. In an "emergency" we would not require a pastor to go beyond his ability to handle all those desiring the Eucharist.

This link touches on these issues. It has some other peripheral content mixed in, but hopefully you can sort it out.

 

[zippy2006]

I read this after my post. I see that you've basically answered my questions. I believe, then, that it comes down to a difference in how we view the pastoral office. In an "emergency" we would not require a pastor to go beyond his ability to handle all those desiring the Eucharist.

This link touches on these issues. It has some other peripheral content mixed in, but hopefully you can sort it out.

Thanks, that was interesting. I think you are right: the primary difference is in how we view the pastoral office. Is it common for Lutheran pastors to either hold a service with or carry the Eucharist to the absent sick? Or those who are dying?

 

[Resha Caner]

Thanks, that was interesting. I think you are right: the primary difference is in how we view the pastoral office. Is it common for Lutheran pastors to either hold a service with or carry the Eucharist to the absent sick? Or those who are dying?

Yes.

 

[AMM]

Thanks, that was interesting. I think you are right: the primary difference is in how we view the pastoral office. Is it common for Lutheran pastors to either hold a service with or carry the Eucharist to the absent sick? Or those who are dying?

I believe so. There's also some sort of "pastoral care handbook" that exists. I've never seen it (I'm imagining a top secret book with a lock sealing it shut, haha) but I've heard it contains a brief liturgy for Last Rites, which contains the Confession, the Eucharist, and Anointing (as well as prayers, etc.), and that's the standard for dying members.

 

[Tangible]

Portable Communion Set - Deluxe Chalice