Reusing the Elements

[RadMan]

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

Large Catechism: Of Baptism, par. 21

26 Here you see again how precious and important a thing Baptism should be regarded as being, for in it we obtain such an inexpressible treasure. This shows that it is not simple, ordinary water, for ordinary water could not have such an effect. But the Word has. It shows also (as we said above) that God’s name is in it. 27 And where God’s name is, there must also be life and salvation. Hence it is well described as a divine, blessed, fruitful, and gracious water, for through the Word Baptism receives the power to become the “washing of regeneration,” as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5.http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftn1 http://www.christianforums.com/#_ftnref1Tappert, Theodore G.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Philadelphia : Fortress Press, 2000, c1959, S. 439

 

[Protoevangel]

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

Well, Mark may have said it wrong, but I think his main point was that while the water of Baptism is indeed Holy, it is not of the same nature as being the very Body and Blood of Christ.

-- Mark, please correct me if I interpreted your meaning wrongly.

 

[RadMan]

Interesting side point would be what about the water in a stream/river where mass baptisms are performed? Is the whole river/stream Holy water and how should it be treated and/or disposed of?




.

 

[Protoevangel]

Interesting side point would be what about the water in a stream/river where mass baptisms are performed? Is the whole river/stream Holy water and how should it be treated and/or disposed of?




.

I can't answer that for Lutherans, but I will mention that the Orthodox bless the waters every year on the Sunday after Theophany.

For the Orthodox, pouring what is Holy into the ground is to keep it from being mixed with "common trash" or sewage. When the waters of a river are blessed, for Theophany, or for Baptism, there is no need to dispose of the water... Although it is truly a pity that the rivers are still sometimes used as a dumping spot.


I'm not sure how that would translate into the Confessional Lutheran mindset, but I suspect it isn't too far off... Except, do the Lutherans ever Baptize in a river anymore?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

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

Well, the AC also defines "Confession and Absolution" as a Sacrament, with no physical elements; Word alone.

Not sure if there is any direct reference from Luther, but I did read somewhere that he wrote that in the absence of water, beer would do just as well... (he had quite a sense of humor).

As far as the physical presence goes; since Scripture is silent or vague, we do not make any extra-biblical definition like the RCC does with "Transubstantiation" or "Consubstantiation" as some protestants have, for that matter. It is a Divine Mystery, so we may err, but we do so on the side of caution.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Well, the AC also defines "Confession and Absolution" as a Sacrament, with no physical elements; Word alone.

Not sure if there is any direct reference from Luther, but I did read somewhere that he wrote that in the absence of water, beer would do just as well... (he had quite a sense of humor).

As far as the physical presence goes; since Scripture is silent or vague, we do not make any extra-biblical definition like the RCC does with "Transubstantiation" or "Consubstantiation" as some protestants have, for that matter. It is a Divine Mystery, so we may err, but we do so on the side of caution.

Yeah, but the defining of Confession as a sacrament was in part because the document was written as a Catholic document by Melanchthon. Thereby using Catholic termonology on somethings, although they do change some termonology so I suppose that is not a perfect fit. And we know that Luther struggled for years with defining Absolution because he wanted to call it a sacrament since it was a means of grace but he did not have a sign (uh oh, bad word now thanks to the Reformed)-I mean a physical element to connect the words of absolution with. He went for some time in his thought saying there remains 2 sacraments, then 3, then 2...
I'm pretty sure that because of his ultimate use of Augustine in his definition that he finally finishes with 2.
Pax

 

[DaRev]

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.

There is no sacramental union in Baptism. In Lutheran theology, Christ blessed all water when He was baptized in the Jordan River. Following a baptism, the water used is poured out onto the ground because it has been used in a sacramental rite.

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

While the Lutheran Confessions do say that there is no sacrament outside the context of the Mass, we simply do not know whether or not the elements ever cease also being the body and blood of Christ, so the consecrated elements are handled differently than unconsecrated elements. If there are any left after the Mass, they are stored seperately and are the first to be used at the next Mass. Also, since we do not know whether or not the body and blood are still present, the elements are also consecrated at the next Mass as well.

 

[LilLamb219]

While the Lutheran Confessions do say that there is no sacrament outside the context of the Mass, we simply do not know whether or not the elements ever cease also being the body and blood of Christ, so the consecrated elements are handled differently than unconsecrated elements. If there are any left after the Mass, they are stored seperately and are the first to be used at the next Mass. Also, since we do not know whether or not the body and blood are still present, the elements are also consecrated at the next Mass as well.

What Da Rev said is exactly what I was taught

 

[filosofer]

For those willing to dig a little, here is a very insight paper, Why Luther is not quite Protestant. The author deals with the differences between Luther and Calvin, and also shows where they differ from Augustine. Of course, he then shows how that is demonstrated in the current church situation.

Here is one quote that helps:

So for instance Calvin will say, "the Sacrament sends us to the cross of Christ," whereas for Luther if we want to receive what Christ won on the cross we go the sacrament, not the cross, for it is in the sacrament that it is actually given to us through the word. The difference is that Luther sides with the externalistic sacramental piety of Thomas Aquinas and Peter Lombard, for whom external signs can give what they signify, while Calvin sides with Augustine, for whom external signs are always pointing away from themselves to something found elsewhere.

 

[Kranke Krokodil]

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.

We just pull the plug and the water washes down the drain.

 

[Kranke Krokodil]

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

Indeed!

 

[Archaenfel]

Hello.

A few comments have been made regarding how the Orthodox manage the Communion elements. Well, as part of a split-denomination house, I believe I can address this on behalf of my Orthodox D&BBH.

When preparing for communion, the Orthodox bake a loaf of bread. A relatively small portion of that bread is set aside for the actual sacrament of Communion ... in a fairly complicated ceremonial fashion. This is the actual communion element, the reminants of which is completely consumed by the priest along with any remaining wine.

The bread that is passed to the congregation ( and oh, dear God how much they pass out around here! ) is considered Blessed. It is not part of the Body of Christ, but it is revered enough that it is not simply to be tossed in the trashheap. Bessed things are blessed from God, and is not to be disrespected in that way. Such bread can be eaten, fed to nature, or respectfully burned. Some of it is, in fact, quite tasty and goes good with butter.


My D&BBH also notes that allowing people to eat this bread may be a concession to the fact that Orthodox are to fast whenever they take communion. They have had nothing since midnight, and are quite hungry.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, Mark may have said it wrong, but I think his main point was that while the water of Baptism is indeed Holy, it is not of the same nature as being the very Body and Blood of Christ.

-- Mark, please correct me if I interpreted your meaning wrongly.

Thanks Proto.

When we look back at our Judeo-Christian roots, the Jews used "living water" for ritual cleansing. "living" means flowing, not still like a pond. When I was in college studying for my Funeral Directors License my best friend there was a Jew. In their Orthodox and Conservative Jewish Funeral Homes they have a Mikva (sp.?) in their embalming rooms, which is used for the ritual cleansing of the remains. It is a tank large enough to submerge the remains, and has a tap running water in on one side, and an overflow drain running water out the other, hence "living water". They have no issue with it going down the drain.

They believe that this ritual purification is achieved through the unified use of this water and God's word.

John, following his Jewish heritage baptized in a river, and rivers were commonly used for ritual cleansing by the Jewish people.

 

[doulos_tou_kuriou]

Thanks Proto.

When we look back at our Judeo-Christian roots, the Jews used "living water" for ritual cleansing. "living" means flowing, not still like a pond. When I was in college studying for my Funeral Directors License my best friend there was a Jew. In their Orthodox and Conservative Jewish Funeral Homes they have a Mikva (sp.?) in their embalming rooms, which is used for the ritual cleansing of the remains. It is a tank large enough to submerge the remains, and has a tap running water in on one side, and an overflow drain running water out the other, hence "living water". They have no issue with it going down the drain.

They believe that this ritual purification is achieved through the unified use of this water and God's word.

John, following his Jewish heritage baptized in a river, and rivers were commonly used for ritual cleansing by the Jewish people.

The early Christian document the didache suggests that the early christians (at least some of them) carried over this tradition from the Jews. The section on baptismal instruction tells you to first find cold running water (living water), if you cannot find that then warm running water, and if not that then cold stagnet water, and if not that then warm stagnet water.

Pax