Receptionism within the Lutheran church

[The Liturgist]

Third picture I noticed the candle at the top of the picture. Under what circumstances is that lit? And what does it signal to you?

My understanding is that is used when the sacrament is reserved for consumption at the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday, or for the sick, because some LCMS parishes do that.

 

[The Liturgist]

I think you are the one misreading the controversy. You seem to be taking @JM at his word that @PsaltiChrysostom's catechesis was hopelessly flawed. My point is that (1) it is highly doubtful that @PsaltiChrysostom's catechesis was a product of "some radicals in the Seminex years" given what he has presented, (2) @PsaltiChrysostom has produced actual quotes and sources, whereas @JM and @MarkRohfrietsch have produced none, and (3) It would be no great surprise if Lutheranism has simply vacillated on this issue, as with so many others.



Given that this issue seems to have contributed to @PsaltiChrysostom's departure from the LCMS, what @JM is doing is effectively a form of gaslighting. And he is managing it without any sources or quotes. Silliness, to put it mildly.

I don’t know @JM or anything about the man, but I look forward to meeting him, but I don’t care about what he wrote on this issue

.My immediate concern is about reconciliation between my friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @PsaltiChrysostom since there has been a misunderstanding, and the fact is I trust the word of my friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @PsaltiChrysostom, so I am seeking to affect a reconciliation by working with the two of them to analyze the particular issue in question.

I find it disappointing that you seem to be interfering in my efforts to reconcile my two friends and get to the bottom of the issue. I’ve always enjoyed dialoguing with you; I wish you would allow me to make peace with my friends without calling into question the fact that I trust both. Our Lord said “Blessed are the peacemakers because they shall be called children of God,” and I am trying to fulfill my Christian duty at present, and would ask that you assist me rather than getting in the way by suggesting that I don’t actually trust both of my friends equally. Forgive me, but it is impossible for you to know the inner state of my mind or the mental model I am operating with; if you said you believed two people who had a disagreement equally by virtue of your friendship with both of them and were trying to figure out the truth of what had caused the disagreement to make peace, I would not question your trust of your friends. Indeed i would not question it in either case.

I might point out inconsistent doctrinal beliefs, but that does not extend to issues of personal trust of the reliability with which my friends are recalling their knowledge, which is in all cases subjective, and in this case the obvious solution is to use a Christian application of dialectic and historical research to get to the bottom of the matter, since I have the utmost trust in the accuracy of the statements of both Mark and PsaltiChrysostom.

We must love each other and not have this kind of argument. We are called to make our selves an icon of God the Holy Trinity, three persons united in perfect love for all eternity, and the devil works by seeking to plant seeds of doubt, discord, disunity and disgust, and we have to resist that temptation, and instead love each other and focus on the Truth which Jesus Christ represents in His incarnation, for He alone is the one objective Truth in this fallen world, the Way of salvation and the Light that illuminates our path.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have mercy on me, a Sinner.

 

[The Liturgist]

I'll make a point of dusting off the long (Leonine) form of St. Michael the Archangel this month.

Splendid. I should add that to the BCP editio MMXXIII as an optional module for the Anglo Catholic configuration. Basically at LiturgyWorks our Anglican members have taken the 1928 BCP and the Anglican Missal and turned them into modules, and added modules from other BCP editions, so that Continuing Anglicans can select the parts they want based on their churchmanship, while having increased commonality and Anglicanism than would result from using the Anglican Missal and the 1928 BCP separately in different parishes.

For my part, my main job has been creating a module that slightly modifies the BCP MMXXIII to make it compatible with Western Rite Orthodox liturgics, based on the Letter of St. Tikhon on the Anglican communion service, and specifically the St. Andrew’s Prayer Book used by the Antiochian Western Rite Vicarate in North America, and St. Colman’s Prayer Book, used by either the AWRV or the ROCOR WRV in Australia and New Zealand.

 

[The Liturgist]

Good afternoon everyone,
Since this discussion was started in the Lutheran forum and I'm not supposed to post there (again, my apologies), I opened up this thread for anyone who wants to join in.

The problem that I had relates to this article written in 2011 (ten years after I became Orthodox). Basically, if the body and the blood are not received, they revert back to being common bread and wine. So consecrated hosts and wine, could be poured back into their original containers. If a host or blood spill on the floor, that was considered outside of the use and there is no cause for concern. Compare that to Luther's reaction when some of the body and blood spilled during two separate services.

In 1542, at a mass in Wittenberg, a woman's mouth hit the chalice so hard that some of the blood and wine spilled onto her cloak, her jacket and onto a pew. Luther licked the spilled blood off the woman's coat with all reverence. Afterwards, the chair was planed off and the shavings burned together with the woman's clothes. On his last journey to Eisleben in February 1546, a few days before his death, Luther had to interrupt his journey in Halle because the Saale had burst its banks due to storms. He held a mass in the church. The many communicants had made him very tired and his trembling hand was the cause of some of the blessed wine dripping onto the floor. Luther fell on his knees and sucked up the wine with his mouth so as not to trample it underfoot and thus profane it.

The ELS pastoral book states

The pastoral theology book we use in our seminary contains this paragraph: “In our churches the saving of the remaining wafers for a future communion should cause no problem. The wine that remains in the flagon may also be returned to a bottle and saved for future use. What remains in the chalice can be used for private communion, or disposed of in a manner that does not show disrespect for the Sacrament or cause offense to the people” (The Shepherd Under Christ, page 95).

Luther and Chemnitz vs. Walther and Pieper: Sorry, but, no contest — Gottesdienst

In preparing to speak on "Consecrationism vs. Receptionism" at the recent Indiana District Church Workers' Conference (17-18 October), various points became increasingly obvious, some of them new and surprising to me, and others already familiar, confirming and clarifying what I already

www.gottesdienst.org

So it seems that the ELS, probably due to the influence of Scandinavian Pietism, which is responsible for the predominantly Swedish Evangelical Free Church with its antipathy towards doctrinal integrity, adopted a Receptionist idea in an attempt to reconcile orthodoxy Lutheranism with low church Lutheranism, and that is unfortunate; I was really interested in the ELS since they are the only one of the historically Scandinavian Lutheran Churches in North America which remains a Confessional Lutheran Church, the others all having been swallowed up by the ELCA, including the Swedish American Augustana Synod in which my namesake and Godfather Eugene was a pastor. The Augustana Synod was very high-church, much like the LCMS is at present.

WELS and LCMS are both descended from German Lutherans, but LCMS is more sacramental and Evangelical Catholic, very similiar to the conservative Mission Province of the Church of Sweden (which was formed in opposition to the extreme left wing theology that has damaged the state Church of Sweden along with its Danish and Norwegian counterparts).

In the case of the LCMS it is clear that they are not at present, nor were they at any time officially receptionist, but I suspect you encountered someone from Seminex or some other liberal group or perhaps a refugee from the ELCA who joined the LCMS for reasons of wanting a more conservative church, but still took with them the Pietism that exists in the ELCA.

Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick’s blog Orhtodoxy and Heterodoxy had an article by a guest contributor that suggested Pietism would one day regarded as one of the worst errors of theology, and I think confessional Lutherans in the LCMS who are committed to Lutheran Orthodoxy would agree with us in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches that Pietism, especially the Eastern Pietism that emerged in the Eastern part of the Prussian Empire and was partially the result of the forced union of the Lutheran and Reformed churches by the Hohenzollern monarchs who later became the Imperial family of the German Empire in 1871, in that the idea that doctrine is divisive and irrelevant is itself a divisive and toxic concept which results in people deprecating Christian doctrinal truths.

However, I think LCMS/LCC has fully prevailed in its struggle against Pietist influences and thus the receptionism you experienced there is no longer something one would likely experience. The Seminex liberals are gone, and the liberal influence in the English Districts has been eliminated, resulting in a much more uniformly orthodox Lutheran denomination.

This is based on my own research into the issue in order to ensure that you and our friend @MarkRohfrietsch have no reason to disagree with one another on this issue.

God bless you both.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

A lady in our congregation went through the Seminex Controversy when her husband was in his fourth year at St. Louis.

She said it was real bad. Lost nearly all her friends she made during the four years as a sem wife. Families ripped apart which continues on today.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Third picture I noticed the candle at the top of the picture. Under what circumstances is that lit? And what does it signal to you?

In the few of our Churches that have retained a Tabernacle, it is obvious. In Churches that don't have a tabernacle or reliquary in their Chancels, we reverence the Altar as Christ's throne. When we celebrate the Eucharist, time and space is transcended, and heaven and earth meet on the Altar with Christ being truly, physically and spiritually present, and we do so with the active participation (as we say in the preface) of angels, archangels, and all the company of Heaven praising Him...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Indeed, and our friend @PsaltiChrysostom for his part is a good friend who is not anti-Lutheran, but I suspect he encountered a liberal idiot of the sort who were trying to wriggle their way into churches in the 1970s in the case of the LCC and LCMS.

In the case of the ELS it is possible they have some erroneous ideas about the Eucharist; I simply don’t know much about them, and if I recall you don’t either, as we have discussed them a few times without forming much of an opinion, in contrast to our view of WELS. It would disappoint me if either the ELS or WELS believed in receptionism.

By the way, what is WELS called in Canada? Perhaps the Winnipeg Evangelical Lutheran Synod?

I joked with a friend the other day that considering Manitoba is analogous to Missouri in terms of their places in the Canadian and US economy respectively, the LCC could alternately call itself the Lutheran Church Manitoba Synod, since both states are heavy grain producers in the great plains, with Saskatchewan being more like Nebraska or especially North Dakota. And Alberta comes across as the Texas of Canada, British Columbia, the Canadian California, with Vancouver Island being like the Canadian version of Oregon and Washington (which is amusing because these were all one territory which the US and Canada agreed to split along the parallel, except for Vancouver Island, the tip of which dips below the latitude of the main border, much like Ontario; in an odd twist, the peninsula Vancouver is built on has a tip which is an American territory which can only be accessed by boat from the US, otherwise one has to drive through Canada, not unlike Montebello, home to the only International Park of the US National Park Service, that is, our only national park on Canadian soil, the Montebello estate of the Roosevelt family. Everyone on that island has to travel through 20 miles of American territory to get to the rest of Canada, except in the summer when there is a car ferry. The International Park at the Roosevelt estate is run by a British man amusingly enough. Situations were miserable for the people in these two exclaves when the border was closed during the pandemic.

Agreed; heck, there are some who have "erroneous" ideas... which is why catechesis must be ongoing; heresy and heterodoxy are tools of the devil, and he will use their influence on the faithful.

Receptionism is just another form of works-righteousness; taking the honor away from God, and giving glory to man for his faith.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

A lady in our congregation went through the Seminex Controversy when her husband was in his fourth year at St. Louis.

She said it was real bad. Lost nearly all her friends she made during the four years as a sem wife. Families ripped apart which continues on today.

Yes, indeed, but it was a battle that had to be fought, and the legacy of that time is a better defined orthodoxy in most of our parishes.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don’t know @JM or anything about the man, but I look forward to meeting him, but I don’t care about what he wrote on this issue

.My immediate concern is about reconciliation between my friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @PsaltiChrysostom since there has been a misunderstanding, and the fact is I trust the word of my friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @PsaltiChrysostom, so I am seeking to affect a reconciliation by working with the two of them to analyze the particular issue in question.

I find it disappointing that you seem to be interfering in my efforts to reconcile my two friends and get to the bottom of the issue. I’ve always enjoyed dialoguing with you; I wish you would allow me to make peace with my friends without calling into question the fact that I trust both. Our Lord said “Blessed are the peacemakers because they shall be called children of God,” and I am trying to fulfill my Christian duty at present, and would ask that you assist me rather than getting in the way by suggesting that I don’t actually trust both of my friends equally. Forgive me, but it is impossible for you to know the inner state of my mind or the mental model I am operating with; if you said you believed two people who had a disagreement equally by virtue of your friendship with both of them and were trying to figure out the truth of what had caused the disagreement to make peace, I would not question your trust of your friends. Indeed i would not question it in either case.

I might point out inconsistent doctrinal beliefs, but that does not extend to issues of personal trust of the reliability with which my friends are recalling their knowledge, which is in all cases subjective, and in this case the obvious solution is to use a Christian application of dialectic and historical research to get to the bottom of the matter, since I have the utmost trust in the accuracy of the statements of both Mark and PsaltiChrysostom.

We must love each other and not have this kind of argument. We are called to make our selves an icon of God the Holy Trinity, three persons united in perfect love for all eternity, and the devil works by seeking to plant seeds of doubt, discord, disunity and disgust, and we have to resist that temptation, and instead love each other and focus on the Truth which Jesus Christ represents in His incarnation, for He alone is the one objective Truth in this fallen world, the Way of salvation and the Light that illuminates our path.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have mercy on me, a Sinner.

We will get over it. I'm good.

 

[The Liturgist]

We will get over it. I'm good.

Wonderful. Because I really love you and @PsaltiChrysostom and value your friendship and it felt to me like other people were driving a wedge between the two of you by clouding the waters in this issue.

 

[The Liturgist]

Agreed; heck, there are some who have "erroneous" ideas... which is why catechesis must be ongoing; heresy and heterodoxy are tools of the devil, and he will use their influence on the faithful.

Receptionism is just another form of works-righteousness; taking the honor away from God, and giving glory to man for his faith.

Tragically it appears that the ethnically Norwegian American ELS is Receptionist based on the information @PsaltiChrysostom provided us, and that is depressing. We are glorified only by God and as St. Silouan the Athonite warned, every Christian must flee both the idea that they are beyond the hope of salvation because of their sins, and the idea that they have achieved glory themselves in their faith, or that they are uniquely holy or special, that they are destined to be regarded as saints, in other words.

Receptionism does not immediately cause one to fall into this delusion, but it contributes, by making the sanctification of the Eucharist dependent on the faith of the one receiving the Eucharist, which sounds sola fide but is actually crypto-Pelagian, in my opinion. That said I do think Receptionism is less of a problem than Symbolism or Memorialism.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

So I found this thread on Reddit. This is a statement by an LCMS pastor from October 1, 2023.

As for the throwing away of individual cups, the answer is more complicated. Beginning in the 1960s, there was a decided anti-traditional movement in the LCMS, combined with an influx of receptionism (The belief that the bread and wine only become body and blood when received by a communicant, and anything left over, is therefore not body or blood). Combined with other aspects of cultural modernism, the plastic Jesus-jigger became almost standard across the LCMS. Currently, I do not believe that the LCMS encourages this practice. However, the synod has limited authority over individual congregations.​

​

So when I was growing up in the 1970s, it appears that there was an anti-liturgical movement (anyone remember the Chicago Folk Liturgy that was popular in the 1970s?). So I wasn't making this stuff up or had a poor education.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/16wsrw8
I'm done with the thread at this point. I'm tired of the crap and the insults. Please don't include me in any further conversation. In fact, I'm going to log off of here for a while.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So I found this thread on Reddit. This is a statement by an LCMS pastor from October 1, 2023.

As for the throwing away of individual cups, the answer is more complicated. Beginning in the 1960s, there was a decided anti-traditional movement in the LCMS, combined with an influx of receptionism (The belief that the bread and wine only become body and blood when received by a communicant, and anything left over, is therefore not body or blood). Combined with other aspects of cultural modernism, the plastic Jesus-jigger became almost standard across the LCMS. Currently, I do not believe that the LCMS encourages this practice. However, the synod has limited authority over individual congregations.​

​

So when I was growing up in the 1970s, it appears that there was an anti-liturgical movement (anyone remember the Chicago Folk Liturgy that was popular in the 1970s?). So I wasn't making this stuff up or had a poor education.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/16wsrw8
I'm done with the thread at this point. I'm tired of the crap and the insults. Please don't include me in any further conversation. In fact, I'm going to log off of here for a while.

Thankfully, I missed that one. LOL. The anti liturgical movement also advocated open communion.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

It is so sad that you are willing to take the word of an anti-Lutheran regarding the teaching of our Church. I don't recall the Latin quote about practicing what we preach but regarding the Eucharist our practices tell the tale of what is actually believed.

Our Catechism says nothing about belief being a key ingredient for efficacy in the sacrament. Christ's body and blood are in, with and under the bread and wine.

If it remains only bread and wine until consumed, why do we bow and or Genuflect before the Altar; why do we elevate the consecrated bread and wine; why does the celebrant turn towards the congregation and present the consecrated elements to the congregation with the words "behold the lamb of God? Why do we make sure to consume all of the consecrated elements, or in some Churches reserve it separate from unconsecrated elements; why do others dispose of them on Consecrated ground. All of these thing's are the norm; those who hold receptionism would have no use for any of these practices. The biggest reason that we are not considering communion with continuing Anglicans is not their faith in Christ, but their receptionism.

I am tired of whiny sucks that need to score brownie points by spreading lies about others. Truly shameful.

View attachment 337295View attachment 337296View attachment 337297

I almost forgot... In addition to the points I raised here, the practice of "Closed Communion" is inconsistent with receptionism. Anglicans will reason that since one must have faith to receive the body and blood of Christ, no harm can come to a non-believer who communes. The Bible clearly states the opposite.

 

[JM]

It is so sad that you are willing to take the word of an anti-Lutheran regarding the teaching of our Church. I don't recall the Latin quote about practicing what we preach but regarding the Eucharist our practices tell the tale of what is actually believed.

Our Catechism says nothing about belief being a key ingredient for efficacy in the sacrament. Christ's body and blood are in, with and under the bread and wine.

If it remains only bread and wine until consumed, why do we bow and or Genuflect before the Altar; why do we elevate the consecrated bread and wine; why does the celebrant turn towards the congregation and present the consecrated elements to the congregation with the words "behold the lamb of God? Why do we make sure to consume all of the consecrated elements, or in some Churches reserve it separate from unconsecrated elements; why do others dispose of them on Consecrated ground. All of these thing's are the norm; those who hold receptionism would have no use for any of these practices. The biggest reason that we are not considering communion with continuing Anglicans is not their faith in Christ, but their receptionism.

I am tired of whiny sucks that need to score brownie points by spreading lies about others. Truly shameful.

View attachment 337295View attachment 337296View attachment 337297

"Our Catechism says nothing about belief being a key ingredient for efficacy in the sacrament...."

That was my point as well. If someone makes a claim about a body of believers it's easy enough to look at their confessions to verify. If someone is claiming "Lutherans believe" and it's not in their confessions, even if that person use to be a Lutheran, I would say they didn't understand the confessional standards.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thankfully, I missed that one. LOL. The anti liturgical movement also advocated open communion.

Do you think open communion correlates with receptionism and an anti-liturgical bent generally?

 

[The Liturgist]

So I found this thread on Reddit. This is a statement by an LCMS pastor from October 1, 2023.

As for the throwing away of individual cups, the answer is more complicated. Beginning in the 1960s, there was a decided anti-traditional movement in the LCMS, combined with an influx of receptionism (The belief that the bread and wine only become body and blood when received by a communicant, and anything left over, is therefore not body or blood). Combined with other aspects of cultural modernism, the plastic Jesus-jigger became almost standard across the LCMS. Currently, I do not believe that the LCMS encourages this practice. However, the synod has limited authority over individual congregations.​

​

So when I was growing up in the 1970s, it appears that there was an anti-liturgical movement (anyone remember the Chicago Folk Liturgy that was popular in the 1970s?). So I wasn't making this stuff up or had a poor education.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LCMS/comments/16wsrw8
I'm done with the thread at this point. I'm tired of the crap and the insults. Please don't include me in any further conversation. In fact, I'm going to log off of here for a while.

Indeed, I had every confidence in the truth of your statement and I know our friend @MarkRohfrietsch did as well. I think some people were over-sensitive and said some unpleasant things to you and you are owed an apology.

I do hope your absence from CF.com is short as your presence here is greatly valued.

 

[The Liturgist]

"Our Catechism says nothing about belief being a key ingredient for efficacy in the sacrament...."

That was my point as well. If someone makes a claim about a body of believers it's easy enough to look at their confessions to verify. If someone is claiming "Lutherans believe" and it's not in their confessions, even if that person use to be a Lutheran, I would say they didn't understand the confessional standards.

PsaltiChrysostom did not say it was current LCMS doctrine, he was reporting what he was taught, and we have identified the source of it. And I think he is owed a heartfelt apology, and much love, since he was not bashing on Lutherans but truthfully reporting what happened in the 1970s, a time during which as our friend @MarkRohfrietsch has confirmed there were additional problems such as a push for open communion.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do you think open communion correlates with receptionism and an anti-liturgical bent generally?

I myself think that the Eucharist should be open for anyone who accepts the real presence of Christ, which is the policy of the Assyrian Church of the East, but at present the closed communion of the LCMS, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics (except insofar as Catholic parishes are required to give communion to members of the Orthodox and Assyrian churches (and the Polish National Catholic Church if I remember correctly, but not the other Old Catholics of the Union of Utrecht, which ejected the PNCC because the PNCC refused to ordain women) who cannot reach their own parish under the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Churches, and some Orthodox parishes will give communion to Catholics is the rule, and it makes sense given current conditions.

What I object to is simply that all members of the aforementioned churches cannot communicate with each other.

 

[The Liturgist]

I almost forgot... In addition to the points I raised here, the practice of "Closed Communion" is inconsistent with receptionism. Anglicans will reason that since one must have faith to receive the body and blood of Christ, no harm can come to a non-believer who communes. The Bible clearly states the opposite.

Some Anglicans will say that. Not the Continuing Anglo Catholics I know of. Also most Anglican parishes refuse to give the Eucharist to someone who has not been baptized. The trend of liberal Episcopalian parishes to do that is very recent.