Reusing the Elements

[Aibrean]

Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox also believe Christ is present which is why "anyone who wants to just eats the bread and drinks the juice after the service" is sickening to think of, especially when they have been consecrated. UGH. So glad I converted out of that. It never seemed right to me to see little kids guzzling down the remnants from communion.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox also believe Christ is present which is why "anyone who wants to just eats the bread and drinks the juice after the service" is sickening to think of, especially when they have been consecrated. UGH. So glad I converted out of that. It never seemed right to me to see little kids guzzling down the remnants from communion.

Yes, these denominations do all believe in the real presence (with the exception of some Anglicans which lean a bit further towards Calvinist and Armenian doctrines); where the differences come into play is how these various denominations do or do not define how it comes about.

Of these four groups; Confessional Lutherans and Orthodox are the closest together on how they view the real presence; Anglican and Roman Catholics share a bit more with each other than they share with us. Christ's body and blood are present and received by the communicant as taught by these denominations, and the Holy Bible.

Mark.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

So glad I converted out of that. It never seemed right to me to see little kids guzzling down the remnants from communion.

Although is that really any different than the pastor guzzling it down or the elders in the sacrasty after church?

And if Luther held that the presence exists during the time of the verba and the distribution is the community eating of it afterwards eating body and blood? This goes back to the issue of reusing the elements and how you treat it post service. Is it still body and blood after communion? After the service? A week later?

Pax

 

[Aibrean]

There is a level of reverence if the pastor/elders do it. The kids were just "getting food". Where my husband works, an LCMS church, (I just asked him) they throw what is not used outside, to give back to the earth. I'm not sure what is done at our current church. I think it should be disposed of in a manner befitting its nature.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Although is that really any different than the pastor guzzling it down or the elders in the sacrasty after church?

And if Luther held that the presence exists during the time of the verba and the distribution is the community eating of it afterwards eating body and blood? This goes back to the issue of reusing the elements and how you treat it post service. Is it still body and blood after communion? After the service? A week later?

Pax

If it is not really Christ's body and blood, then how it is handled is of no matter, However; since Scripture is silent on this matter, we have no choice but to consider it so. This is where a worthy manner of reception becomes important.

With regard to "Christian Questions with their Answers" which address the reception of the Sacrament; "These... are no child's play... Let each one take heed and likewise consider it a serious matter; for St. Paul writes to the Galations, Chapter six: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked."" (pg. 31, Luther's Small Catechism, 1943 edition.)

 

[Aibrean]

Is it still body and blood after communion? After the service? A week later?
Pax

That's a good question. It would make sense that it's only during the time of communion but it's not defined. If you had a second service (such as our church has) there wouldn't be a need to re-consecrate even though it's done.

From the Book of Concord

Nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ

 

[Protoevangel]

And if Luther held that the presence exists during the time of the verba and the distribution is the community eating of it afterwards eating body and blood? This goes back to the issue of reusing the elements and how you treat it post service. Is it still body and blood after communion? After the service? A week later?

Pax

Luther recommended that all of the consecrated Gifts be consumed. Then and only was the "action" of the Supper considered complete.

"Therefore, we shall define the time or the sacramental action in this way: that it starts with the beginning of the Our Father and lasts until all have communicated, have emptied the chalice, have consumed the Hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left the altar."
- Martin Luther, as quoted in "The Case of the Lost Luther Reference", published by Concordia Theological Seminary.

Holy Scripture is silent on the question as to whether the Gifts are still the Body and Blood of Christ after Communion, the Holy Fathers never suggested that Christ ever ceased to be present, but the Lutherans had already come up with the rule that "Nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ"... This was Luther's pious way of avoiding the question as to whether the Gifts were still the Body and Blood of Christ after Communion.

 

[Aibrean]

Consuming all does make sense considering Jesus said "drink ye all of it".

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Luther recommended that all of the consecrated Gifts be consumed. Then and only was the "action" of the Supper considered complete.

"Therefore, we shall define the time or the sacramental action in this way: that it starts with the beginning of the Our Father and lasts until all have communicated, have emptied the chalice, have consumed the Hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left the altar."
- Martin Luther, as quoted in "The Case of the Lost Luther Reference", published by Concordia Theological Seminary.

Holy Scripture is silent on the question as to whether the Gifts are still the Body and Blood of Christ after Communion, the Holy Fathers never suggested that Christ ever ceased to be present, but the Lutherans had already come up with the rule that "Nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ"... This was Luther's pious way of avoiding the question as to whether the Gifts were still the Body and Blood of Christ after Communion.

Thanks Proto! Fr. Martin does indeed have a way with words!

Consuming all does make sense considering Jesus said "drink ye all of it".

That He did!

 

[Aibrean]

Of course Mark, that could be also interpreted as "drink from it, all of you".

LCMS suggests to consume or reverently pour out the remaining wine outside so it's separate from any sewage system and disposed of reverently.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Of course Mark, that could be also interpreted as "drink from it, all of you".

Right again!

LCMS suggests to consume or reverently pour out the remaining wine outside so it's separate from any sewage system and disposed of reverently.

In my previous congregation, the wine in the chalice was poured out in our Cemetery behind the Chancel; on ground that has been blessed for God's purpose.

 

[Kranke Krokodil]

..."anyone who wants to just eats the bread and drinks the juice after the service" is sickening to think of, especially when they have been consecrated. UGH. So glad I converted out of that. It never seemed right to me to see little kids guzzling down the remnants from communion.

Yes, I can understand your feeling that way. Baptists see communion as a symbolic ordinance only. The bread and juice stay as bread and juice. There is therefore, in the Baptist mindset, nothing wrong with eating the bread and drinking the juice after the service.

 

[Aibrean]

But what of the 1 Corinthians 27-34

Specifically:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Even in a non-denominational setting, those who weren't believers weren't supposed to partake. As we've already stated before, we don't have a guideline to when it "ends" in the Bible (which is why after the service it's treated reverently). Even if you don't believe in anything but it being a symbol, when does "eat/drink in an unworthy manner" end?

 

[Kranke Krokodil]

...Even if you don't believe in anything but it being a symbol, when does "eat/drink in an unworthy manner" end?

Personally, I do not believe it just a symbol. As for when the time ends, I do not know that this has been officially defined by the Fellowship Baptist denomination. It seems to be generally held in our congregation, however, that it is over by time the service ends as the Pastor has no problem with people consuming the leftover elements.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

I'm confused as to what makes it "reverent" drinking. A Pastor gulping down the wine to end it is reverent? Is "returning" it to the earth more reverent a thing than someone drinking it?
And why is it that the people cannot "reverently" eat and drink?
And strangely enough we are still discussing really only what to do with the wine. What about the bread? Anyone see their pastor "reverently" take a mouthful of waffers lately?

And going back to a previous thing I think I remember reading, in a congregation where there is multiple services in one day, do you think the elements should be consecrated twice (assuming they re-use some from the 1st service)?

Good conversation all, keep it up!

If anyone wants we can discuss baptismal water too.

Pax

 

[LutheranHawkeye]

How long does the word stay within baptismal water?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

How long does the word stay within baptismal water?

Well it doesn't, because the water is not consecrated like the bread and the wine. The water remains water.

We do however pour the water on the ground after the service.

 

[Protoevangel]

Well it doesn't, because the water is not consecrated like the bread and the wine. The water remains water.

We do however pour the water on the ground after the service.

At least the pastors don't have to drink it!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

At least the pastors don't have to drink it!

Indeed! After a font-full there would be no room for beer!

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Well it doesn't, because the water is not consecrated like the bread and the wine. The water remains water.

We do however pour the water on the ground after the service.

That is an interesting distinction. Is there any evidence that Luther makes this, since he defines sacrament under the Augustinian definition of when the word binds itself to the element. The water is not mere water, it is water with the word of God attached, just like the wine is not mere wine. I do not understand how one is "consecrated" and one not within Lutheran sacramental theology since both become sacrament by the same means and so the understanding of it as a sacrament should be similar.

Does your statement mean you think that bread and wine are still body and blood after communion?

You can see why I opened this thread, it is such a difficult issue to clearly define and therefore leaves a lot of questions.

Pax