Receptionism within the Lutheran church

[JM]

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.

And there it is, "he was reporting what he was taught..." proving my point in the original thread. He was poorly taught, poorly catechized.

(Like most of us in North America.)

Thanks @The Liturgist!

 

[chevyontheriver]

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.

While full communion is a goal, at present we just aren't there. What we are saying by being in communion with each other is that there are no essential differences among us. Catholics CAN provide the Eucharist to the Orthodox because we see no essential differences with the Orthodox. OTOH there are Orthodox who can't even accept my Catholic baptism. So there is a lot of work to do first. And between Lutherans and Catholics (let alone the Orthodox) we can't agree yet on ordained ministry needed for a valid Eucharist. The thing to object to is that after 950 years Catholics and Orthodox still walk apart and after 500 years Lutherans and Catholics still walk apart. And that for lots of folks that is just peachy fine. Yes, there is SOME progress. Yes, they should have done it yesterday. But it's not done yet. And shared communion says it is done. When it isn't.

 

[JM]

What frustrates me is that you are prevaricating in the same way that ecumenists prevaricate. You are pretending that there is no disagreement when there obviously is. You say that the two parties are in agreement on this question of receptionism among the LCMS, when this is the very question they are disagreeing about. Peace cannot be won at the expense of truth. If you wish to reconcile them, then you must first admit that they disagree.

I don't have time to pick out the various falsehoods, but here's one:


Go read this post, where the timeframe is explicitly 1980-2001. Or this post, where citations are taken from all over the 20th century, and as far back as the 16th. He has also given multiple citations post-2020 in order to answer this claim that "it was just the 70's." His very first post was obviously not restricted to the 70's, and that is what began this whole debate. The OP was about a receptionist article written in 2011. I'm not convinced that you have read his posts very carefully at all. You seem to be re-writing his position in order to avoid any possible disagreement, and every one of his posts contradicts your re-writing.


@PsaltiChrysostom is a former elder of an LCMS church, and he departed in part because of the problems he is explaining.

You've resorted to a peculiar variety of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy along with a bit of gaslighting. If you and @JM can't provide any quotes or sources for your position, as you have been asked to do multiple times, then I would suggest going back to the Lutheran forum, where no such evidence is required.

Zippy, what Lutherans believe is found in the Book of Concord linked below. The Book of Concord is the authoritative confession of what Lutherans believe. I understand you want to defend the "Elder" but he is contradicting the confessional standards.

BookOfConcord.org

The Original Home of the Book of Concord

bookofconcord.org

The "Elder" should be embarrassed for being an Elder and not knowing what his church confessed, and ashamed at using cheap Orthobro tactics. By picking a bad example of theology and trying to apply it to the whole church body is a sad trend among coconverts.

Have a Zippy do Duh day!

 

[JM]

While practices may vary, what you are universally presenting as LCMS practice is wrong. While a few congregations may reserve in a tabernacle, those that do reserve the consecrated left-overs separate and away from unconsecrated elements. That said, most of the congregations I know of (and I know of a lot of them having been and am still serving on Synodical National and regional boards and committees, most consume completely the left over elements. Using them in the next liturgy is not acceptable as it is akin to baptizing someone twice. The one exception would be reconsecrating elements on Maundy Thursday for use in a pre-consecrated mass on Good Friday.

You may enjoy this.

When He says, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” we take Him at His Word. It’s not our faith in Him that makes Him present, but His own Words. A Sermon on Closed Communion

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You may enjoy this.

When He says, “This is my body,” and “This is my blood,” we take Him at His Word. It’s not our faith in Him that makes Him present, but His own Words. A Sermon on Closed Communion

Amen!!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

What frustrates me is that you are prevaricating in the same way that ecumenists prevaricate. You are pretending that there is no disagreement when there obviously is. You say that the two parties are in agreement on this question of receptionism among the LCMS, when this is the very question they are disagreeing about. Peace cannot be won at the expense of truth. If you wish to reconcile them, then you must first admit that they disagree.

I don't have time to pick out the various falsehoods, but here's one:


Go read this post, where the timeframe is explicitly 1980-2001. Or this post, where citations are taken from all over the 20th century, and as far back as the 16th. He has also given multiple citations post-2020 in order to answer this claim that "it was just the 70's." His very first post was obviously not restricted to the 70's, and that is what began this whole debate. The OP was about a receptionist article written in 2011. I'm not convinced that you have read his posts very carefully at all. You seem to be re-writing his position in order to avoid any possible disagreement, and every one of his posts contradicts your re-writing.


@PsaltiChrysostom is a former elder of an LCMS church, and he departed in part because of the problems he is explaining.

You've resorted to a peculiar variety of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy along with a bit of gaslighting. If you and @JM can't provide any quotes or sources for your position, as you have been asked to do multiple times, then I would suggest going back to the Lutheran forum, where no such evidence is required.

Time frame means nothing other than a local anomaly, our Theology is found only in the Bible and expounded in the unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of Concord. This always was the case; those who taught otherwise had already separated themselves from the confessional Church, regardless of what they called themselves.

You, like he, can speak for their own Church, but when in error can not speak for mine. What he was, he was. He has no standing in the Confessional Lutheran Church, and neither do you. It seems others have figured this out as well. What exactly is your agenda? It is not building bridges and exploring potentially unifying doctrines and dogmatics; that is very clear.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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

I do. If we were completely faithful to the Word, open communion would not even be a consideration. You can have liturgy that outwardly appears orthodox, but without orthodoxy it is akin to the "white-washed tomb" mentioned in scripture. Outwardly clean and beautiful, but under the grave marker, wormy corruption and decay. As someone said, "the devil is in the details" in this case, the missed details.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yout twist things like a politician.
I am afraid of nothing, especially not former Lutherans that have rejected our Doctrines, dogmatics and practices for those of another communion.

I was not going to pull rank, but here goes...

1. I was born and baptized into confessional Lutheranism almost 65 years ago.
2. I was taken to Sunday School and Divine Service weekly by my faithful parents.
3. I attended 2 years of catechism class every Saturday, and was confirmed into the Confessional Lutheran Faith at the age of 14; after which I spent about 6 years serving as an acolyte.
4. From about the age of 16 I served on our Churches cemetery committee.
5. From 1982 I served that congregation as an Elder and Deacon, reading in Church and assisting with services. It was during this time that the Canadian Churches transitioned from being part of the LCMS to become an autonomous Canadian entity, in full fellowship and partner ship with the LCMS. Lutheran Church Canada.
6. In the late 80s I moved into a near-by town, and transferred my membership to a small congregation, where, I also served as an Elder and Deacon until the congregation closed due to declining membership. (one of the reasons the membership declined was that many rejected both liturgical worship and closed communion. The majority of those who did not go to other Lutheran Churches; rather to Baptist, Pentecostal and other similar non-denominational local Churches.
7. During that time, I also served on the Synodical East District Worship committee, and it was during that time that our most recent Hymnal, Lutheran Service Book, was published and introduced to our congregations (which most adopted as it was IMO a restoration of orthodox liturgy originally found in the 1941 TLH.
8. Having worked with the congregation, the District and Circuit during disillusion of that congregation, I transferred membership with my family to our present Parish.
9. I attended as a regular member for a couple years until finding myself in direct service of the Church as an Elder and Deacon.
10. When covid hit, our Altar guild basically stropped functioning, and I stepped up and accepted the responsibilities of Sacristan. During that time, we elders and our pastor worked diligently to restore some historical practices to better reflect our Eucharistic Theology.
11. I continue to serve as Sacristan, we have rebuilt our Altar Guild, and despite few young people, and a small Sunday School, have begun training acolytes; something we have been missing since before Covid as well.
12. I am also serving currently as a Lay Delegate at the national level of LCC (our National Bishop/President is a beloved former Pastor of mine), I also serve on the East Region Mission and Ministry Committee in a similar capacity for the East Region of Canada.
13. Looking towards retirement, I am hoping to start some distance learning courses this year through our Seminary in the near future, under the guidance of both my Pastor and regional Bishop..
14. All of the above, and I am still working full time as an Engineer in the Automotive sector.

So, it would appear that I may not be just another "internet cowboy rube" as you implied in an earlier post; and considering the experience involvement listed above, I should be able to correct and admonish those who are spreading misinformation, intentionally or otherwise.

Here endoth the rant.

Indeed so. And furthermore Mark and PsaltiChrysostom are my friends, and I can assure you @zippy2006 Mark knows PsaltiChrysostom is not by any means an anti-Lutheran, but understands rather the reality of what went wrong in the 1970s that aggravated him, rather, the anti-Lutherans in the picture are other members to back it up.

Yet for asserting this I get called a liar and all ecumenists are accused of lying because of the falsehood that we gloss over differences in order to pursue unity at all costs. This is not true; I did not lie; I believed the word of both my friends equally, and to claim otherwise is a lie, and furthermore in my pursuit of ecumenical reconciliation I recognize there are differences that have to be overcome. Between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and Orthodox Lutheranism there are very few, the main issue I think would simply relate to the Lutheran and Orthodox difference in opinion regarding intercessory prayers to the saints.

There is also the issue of when in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood, since most Western Christians believe it happens at the Words of Institution, and most Eastern Christians believe it happens during the Epiclesis, the prayer invoking the Holy Spirit and asking Him to change them, and some Eastern Christians hesitate to pinpoint a specific time or have a more complex idea (for example, the rather baroque idea of Theodore of Mopsuestia that the bread and wine become the deceased body and blood of our Lord in the Liturgy of Preparation, and then in the Epiclesis are transformed into the resurrected body and blood, but that is a very niche view which is quite out there, and I don’t know of anyone these days who actually believes that).

The thing is, however, the Eastern Church and the Western Church disagreed about the moment of consecration as far back as the Fourth Century, which is why the Roman Canon lacks a strong Epiclesis comparable to that in the Divine Liturgy of St. Mark, the oldest extant Eastern Liturgy, or the Divine Liturgies of St. Basil, St. James or St. John Chrysostom. Although it does have an epiclesis. Luther objected to the Roman canon being said silently and to some of its contents so removed it, which I have always felt was excessive, but there is a long history of Lutheran anaphoras, or Eucharistic prayers, and even some Lutherans using a version of the Roman canon albeit praying it aloud. I think the first Lutheran Archbishop of Uppsala in 16th century Sweden did that, in addition to writing new liturgical texts, which were very beautiful if I recall.

 

[chevyontheriver]

In the wild west of the internet, those who can produce Lutheran sources and Lutheran quotes speak for Lutheranism. You're just another guy on the internet who is unable to defend his theories with substantiation. Unless of course you are the Pope of Lutheranism, in which case you can show us your card and we will just take your word as the Mouthpiece of Lutheranism.

This little corner of CF, unlike most of the rest of CF, has been polite, positive, and informative. We have sought to build bridges rather than blow them up. We do not agree on everything, and we don't pretend that we agree on everything, but we are not hostile here. Your last sentence (Pope of Lutheranism) has no place in this little corner of CF. Your sentence before that (just another guy) seems out of place as well.

 

[The Liturgist]

Indeed, and we have managed to alienate my friend PsaltiChrysostom. I love my friends Mark and Chrysostom and this is extremely upsetting for me, and I am upset that this has happened. We have had a flamewar and we may have lost one of our best members. And we have upset many others including you my friend @chevyontheriver and myself and @MarkRohfrietsch . I feel physically sick. Lets focus on healing and repentence.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is closed for review and clean up​

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread is getting a clean up and is being reopened.

Keep it civil. ​

 

[The Liturgist]

Sorry about that. I'm scrolling back and forth looking at your questions

So as to regards to your question of communion for the sick, the one thing I remember was the day before I went into surgery in 1999, my pastor asked if I wanted communion. Since Lutheran theology simply requires that the pastor pronounce the Words of Institution over the bread and wine for communion, this makes the need for reserving a portion for the pastor to take to the home or hospital bound a non issue.

Only the Evangelical Church in America has altar fellowship with non-Lutherans.
View attachment 336944

Full Communion Partners

A goal of the ELCA is to pursue a model of ecumenism called “full communion.” Currently, the ELCA shares full communion relationships with six denominations.

www.elca.org

Those denominations comprise seven out of the nine or ten mainline denominations (the others being the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ, the American Baptist Convention, and the more liberal Mennonites who ordain women, etc). Various groupings of the above are commonly called “the Seven Sisters” but a list of the Seven Sisters frequently omits the Moravians and includes either the ABC or the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ.

 

[actionsub]

I remember Seminex (seminary in exile) and the LCMS row in St. Louis. At the time I had a dorm room at Washington University that was closer to their seminary than it was to my own quad. And Seminex got temporary space from St. Louis University. I thought that was rather backwards for SLU to do.

I attended Eden Seminary for two years in the 2010s. There are still plaques on the wall commemorating their participation by offering classroom space for Seminex.

 

[actionsub]

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.​

​

I suspect in more recent years concerns over COVID transmissions may have played into this trend also.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I suspect in more recent years concerns over COVID transmissions may have played into this trend also.

Pastors have limited authority over their own congregations as well. The single greatest flaw of Congregationalism.

 

[The Liturgist]

Pastors have limited authority over their own congregations as well. The single greatest flaw of Congregationalism.

There is a workaround and that’s to put backdoors in the bylaws, corporate charter, and the deed to the real estate, which can be used to prevent the congregation or lay leadership from embracing heresy or schism. These are a good idea no matter the polity; such a clause in the deed prevented Bishop Bruno of LA from selling the property of a conservative parish he shut down to a real estate developer (he was later forced to resign after it emerged that he was receiving kickbacks from real estate developers, and to my knowledge no conservative parishes in the Episcopal Diocese of LA, assuming there are any left after his reign of terror, have been shut down and ejected from their parishes since.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I started this so I wouldn't be out of line with CF guidelines. Since both you and Mark objected to me posting in the LCMS forum, I was fine with that. What I was NOT fine with was the ad hominum attack on my Lutheran catechisis. So I opened this here. If you don't want to discuss that's perfectly fine and the thread can die out on its own.

My objection is VERY specific to LCMS / ELS / WELS practice which promotes a semi-receptionist view regarding the disposal of the communion elements after communion.

The statement from the FoC that the elements are not considered sacramental when outside of the liturgical act of "eating and drinking" means that theoretically, they revert back to being bread and wine at the end of the liturgy.

I was a strict consecrationist when I was LCMS and I argued multiple times against my pastors about my problem with returning consecrated elements mixed in with unconsecrated elements.

What do you say about this from the LCMS FAQ?

The other point of reference is page 89 of The Altar Guild Manual: Lutheran Service Book Edition, by Dr. Lee Maxwell that says:

“What remains in the chalice, however, should either be consumed or poured into the piscine or onto the ground since there may be crumbs or other foreign matter in it. The reserved elements may then be kept in the sacristy or placed on the altar or credence and covered with a white veil. It is un-Lutheran and irreverent to place unused elements in the trash or to pour the remainder of what is in the chalice or flagon into the common drain." If the elements are saved for future use, it is best they are kept separate.

Yet the common practice as a Lutheran from the 1980s to when I left in 2001 was to put hosts back into a container with unconsecreated hosts and to pour the remaining wine down the sink.

Do we want to get into individual communion cups? As an elder, I don't know how many times people would drop communion cups into the trash that were filled with Christ's blood. How do you deny that the LCMS practice is receptionist when DISPOSABLE communion cups are a common practice?

Even CPH sells them by the 1000 "These one-time-use Communion cups fit standard trays and have a smooth, comfortable lip. Cups are made of 100% clear polystyrene and are recyclable."

Economy Communion Cups (Box of 1000) - Concordia Publishing House

These one-time-use Communion cups fit standard trays and have a smooth, comfortable lip. Cups are made of 100% clear polystyrene and are recyclable.

www.cph.org

FYI
You have absolutely no idea what my Lutheran education was. I grew up during the Seminex years and I was taught by Concordia Ft. Wayne students, graduates and faculty. If you are going to start leveling charges at a poor catechesis then you'd better get your credentials in line.

While maybe not your intent, the fact is that your statements and generalization paint Lutheranism as a bunch of heterodox twerps. While some are, there are also those of us who maintain very universally orthodox practices regarding the Eucharist and their handling.

This painting with a wide brush is very frustrating and if doing so stems from the poor catechesis that you received as a Lutheran, that is unfortunate; just don't take it out on the rest of us. Please.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There is a workaround and that’s to put backdoors in the bylaws, corporate charter, and the deed to the real estate, which can be used to prevent the congregation or lay leadership from embracing heresy or schism. These are a good idea no matter the polity; such a clause in the deed prevented Bishop Bruno of LA from selling the property of a conservative parish he shut down to a real estate developer (he was later forced to resign after it emerged that he was receiving kickbacks from real estate developers, and to my knowledge no conservative parishes in the Episcopal Diocese of LA, assuming there are any left after his reign of terror, have been shut down and ejected from their parishes since.

Not really, that would require the congregation to relinquish the freedom and authority; just went through that skit; the congregation called for a review of the constitution, a review committee was voted on and appointed by the congregation. the Church council refused to hear the committees recommendations. Dead in the water. I am an Elder, Sacristan and frequently serve as Deacon, and the council would not let us present.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not really, that would require the congregation to relinquish the freedom and authority; just went through that skit; the congregation called for a review of the constitution, a review committee was voted on and appointed by the congregation. the Church council refused to hear the committees recommendations. Dead in the water. I am an Elder, Sacristan and frequently serve as Deacon, and the council would not let us present.

That sounds miserable. I would note a constitutional device as I described has to apply to all organs of the parish and be embedded when it is founded. If a parish is already having problems its a bit too late.