Same belief, different practice...

[ctobola]

As a Lutheran, I've observed a difference between practices of the the ELCA and ECUSA that I find interesting... and I'd welcome anyone who would like to discuss them.

As I understand it, both of our fellowships believe in the most ontological definitions of the Real Presence in communion. (Virtually all Christian traditions believe in the "Real Presence," they just define it differently.) In a nutshell, Lutherans and Episcopalians believe that Christ is truly, physically present "in, with and under" the form of the elements (Luther's words).

What I find interesting, is that our similar beliefs have lead to very dissimilar practices. In my experience, the Episcopal tradition tends to put more of an emphasis on reverence for the elements, particularly after the communion service has ended. Am I correct in assuming that Episcopalians tend to take greater care to ensure that the elements are not spilled or lost? I know I've heard of some Episcopal congregations that keep the bread and wine after the rite as "reserve host." Is that a common practice?

For Lutherans, the idea of the reserve host is outside of our practice. In congregations where we use a loaf of bread, it's not uncommon for someone (the pastor or servers) to take the extra bread home for Sunday dinner. By our understanding, the bread and wine are only Christ's body and blood within the context of the service and the community of believers. Any bread and wine that remains at worship location cannot be Christ's body and blood because the believers have gone home.

Likewise, many congregations send out families from the worship service to share the body and blood with the elderly, shut-ins, etc. In some congregations, one of the family members says the words of institution again with the recipient, and then all assembled partake. Other congregations do not have a family members say the words of institution, but still consider the elements consecrated... not simply because they WERE consecrated earlier (and they held onto their consecrated nature), but because the fellowship overcomes the geographic distance and includes the family, the recipient and those in the pews.

I find these two practices, which seem to be somewhat opposed, to be quite surprising, particularly give that they grew from the same basic understanding of the Real Presence.

I'd appreciate responses -- and corrections where appropriate.

Thanks! -Cloy

[gitlance]

Well, you will of course find various interpretations of the "Real Presence" among Anglicans, but let me give you my two cents:

Anglicans of the "Anglo-Catholic" variety (like myself) are those who tend to hold to very Catholic/Orthodox beliefs pertaining to all things of the Faith and the Church. For many Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics, the Eucharist is indeed the Body and the Blood of Christ as a result of the consecration. Anglicans do not generally use terms such as consubstantiation or transubstantiation to define exactly how this transition takes place... we are content to merely state that in some divine mystery, the bread and wine become the Body and the Blood. We have great reverence for the elements because Christ physically and spiritually dwells within them.

For us, the participation in the Eucharist is the most intimate act of fellowship between Christ and man. In the Mass, Christ's sacrifice is made physically and spiritually present to us, and we are given the opportunity to physically and spiritually partake of that sacrifice. We believe that Christ sends His Holy Spirit upon the gifts of bread and wine, and they become for us the gifts of the Body and the Blood. The exact way by which it happens is a mystery.

As Queen Elizabeth I said: "'Twas God the word that spake it, He took the bread and brake it, And what the word did make it, That I believe and take it."

Hope this helped!

Christ's peace! :crossrc:

[benedictine]

Well, the reserving part really depends on teh presiding priest. My last priest would have everything consumed, but my current priest only consumes what is not practical to reserve, eg. a host fallen on the floor, a chalice he forgot to empty after returning the ciborium to the Tabernacle/aumbry, etc. Now, only teh reerved host keeps the presence of Christ in it. If you take it home, collect hosts, and then have a big dose of Spiritual Christ, it won't work.(This actually happened once, if you want more info, i'll tell you.)

[ctobola]

...Anglicans do not generally use terms such as consubstantiation or transubstantiation to define exactly how this transition takes place... we are content to merely state that in some divine mystery, the bread and wine become the Body and the Blood. We have great reverence for the elements because Christ physically and spiritually dwells within them.
...

Are the teachings of Aquinas accepted within the Anglican/Episcipal tradition?

I frequently hear Lutherans say, "Our beliefs on communion are the same as the Catholics, we just don't explain it." Aquinas' teachings are frequently mentioned in the same breathe, presumably because they represent the types of discussions we choose to understand as a mystery.

-Cloy

[gitlance]

Many Anglicans do accept the teachings of Aquinas as they relate to the Holy Eucharist. Some other Anglicans, particularly low-church evangelical Anglicans, might not. The Book of Common Prayer and the general faith of the Church do not make pronouncements on the exact way by which the Body and the Blood are made present in the Mass: we are simply required to believe in the "Real Presence" and all that it entails.

It is true, traditional, biblical, apostolic Faith to properly believe Christ's words: "This is my Body... This is my Blood... unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life within you."

Perhaps the Eucharist is something -- like so much in our Faith -- that must ultimately remain a mystery we just have to accept as best we can.

I believe what Christ said concerning the Sacrament of His Body and Blood.... if that means I believe in transubstantiation, then so be it. But I do not believe it is right to limit such an awesome gift of grace as the Eucharist with narrow, human words.

In the mysterium fidei,

gitlance :crossrc:

[Brian Augustyn]

In my experience, the Episcopal tradition tends to put more of an emphasis on reverence for the elements, particularly after the communion service has ended. Am I correct in assuming that Episcopalians tend to take greater care to ensure that the elements are not spilled or lost? I know I've heard of some Episcopal congregations that keep the bread and wine after the rite as "reserve host." Is that a common practice?

For Lutherans, the idea of the reserve host is outside of our practice. In congregations where we use a loaf of bread, it's not uncommon for someone (the pastor or servers) to take the extra bread home for Sunday dinner. By our understanding, the bread and wine are only Christ's body and blood within the context of the service and the community of believers. Any bread and wine that remains at worship location cannot be Christ's body and blood because the believers have gone home.

Maybe I should be a Lutheran...

The beliefs about communion that Cloy deliniates represent my beliefs almost exactly. Even when I was Roman Catholic, I struggled with the idea of the reserve. To me, the continued presence of Christ in the elements is both unlikely and unnecessary. Communion is certainly the Lord's Supper and a gift of grace from God, but it is most effectively symbolic of everything Jesus intended when communion is celebrated in community.

Whenever two or more of us gather in his name, Christ has promised to be in our midst. The Real Presence, it seems to me, does not stay within the elements, but rather goes out within us--after we have been transformed anew into the Body of Christ in the world.

Over-reverence of the elements, apart from their crucial roles in the ceremony, feels almost idolatrous to me. We don't want to be worshiping Christ as if we have him captive within those objects; especially as we can and should see Christ in everything, especially each other. The Real Presence is God's work, not ours, and I'm sure it is not limited by our understanding, our literalness, or our denominations. I do understand the impulse; we all strongly desire to grab hold of even the hem of Jesus' garment, to experience some fleeting moment of physical contact with our God. Christ's presence in the elements is a palpable reality and we are loathe to let go too quickly.

Lest we boast, I'm sure that Christ is also truly present in even the most stipped-down, Protestant communion service featuring Saltines and Welch's. It's not the material, or the words (though both may be important), it is first the will of God and the grace of Christ that makes Communion work. Our faith is secondary, our understanding nonessential. Our specific rituals are even further down the list.

That said, my middle-church parish has a plain aumbry in the sacristy where a reserve is stored for home and hospital visits. We certainly believe in the Real Presence, and many I'm sure hold a very high view. We treat the elements with all due reverence when they are being distributed (this is appropriate, the moment is real and deeply important).

peace,
Brian

[TomUK]

Same belief, different practice...really? The sacrements are far more than just a way of thinking- they are a way of living our life as followers of Christ. To me different practice implies different belief, and while admitedly we may share similar beliefs regarding the real presence during the mass, our differeing sacremental way of living reveals that fundamentally we are quite different.

That's just me thinking out loud- not sure if it actually makes sense.

[UberLutheran]

At my parish, we do have "reserved Sacrament" for the shut-ins and those who are ill, so that the Eucharist can be brought to them after Sunday service.

Any remaining wine is consumed before we wash the chalice. We believe the Blood of Christ is not to be thrown on the ground.

With regards to the bread, what we do has a Scriptural precedent: "See the birds of the sky, that they don't sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns. Your heavenly Father feeds them. Aren't you of much more value than they?" (Matthew 6:26). If God feeds the birds out of the goodness of His bounty, we can, too.

(There is a particularly delicious Communion bread recipe which I make; and on the Sundays when I bring the bread, I do my darndest to try to convince people that I really am a bird!) ;)

[ctobola]

Same belief, different practice...really? The sacrements are far more than just a way of thinking- they are a way of living our life as followers of Christ. To me different practice implies different belief, and while admitedly we may share similar beliefs regarding the real presence during the mass, our differeing sacremental way of living reveals that fundamentally we are quite different.

That's just me thinking out loud- not sure if it actually makes sense.

Tom, you are exactly correct. That's my point, and it's particularly salient for Episcopalians and ELCA Lutherans in the United States -- we have full altar and pulpit fellowship through "Called to a Common Mission" (CCM).

I have been opposed to CCM from the beginning because I think it is disingenuous for the ELCA to accept the historic episcopate, even though our theology does not recognize it as anything but a historic curiosity. On other points of theology, I've always thought we were relatively close. Of late, the issue of communion practice has been brought to my attention several times.

-Cloy

[ctobola]

Thanks for your comments, Brian. If found the following particularly thoughtful and challenging:

Maybe I should be a Lutheran...
The Real Presence, it seems to me, does not stay within the elements, but rather goes out within us--after we have been transformed anew into the Body of Christ in the world.

-Cloy

[Colabomb]

As a Lutheran, I've observed a difference between practices of the the ELCA and ECUSA that I find interesting... and I'd welcome anyone who would like to discuss them.

As I understand it, both of our fellowships believe in the most ontological definitions of the Real Presence in communion. (Virtually all Christian traditions believe in the "Real Presence," they just define it differently.) In a nutshell, Lutherans and Episcopalians believe that Christ is truly, physically present "in, with and under" the form of the elements (Luther's words).

What I find interesting, is that our similar beliefs have lead to very dissimilar practices. In my experience, the Episcopal tradition tends to put more of an emphasis on reverence for the elements, particularly after the communion service has ended. Am I correct in assuming that Episcopalians tend to take greater care to ensure that the elements are not spilled or lost? I know I've heard of some Episcopal congregations that keep the bread and wine after the rite as "reserve host." Is that a common practice?

For Lutherans, the idea of the reserve host is outside of our practice. In congregations where we use a loaf of bread, it's not uncommon for someone (the pastor or servers) to take the extra bread home for Sunday dinner. By our understanding, the bread and wine are only Christ's body and blood within the context of the service and the community of believers. Any bread and wine that remains at worship location cannot be Christ's body and blood because the believers have gone home.

Likewise, many congregations send out families from the worship service to share the body and blood with the elderly, shut-ins, etc. In some congregations, one of the family members says the words of institution again with the recipient, and then all assembled partake. Other congregations do not have a family members say the words of institution, but still consider the elements consecrated... not simply because they WERE consecrated earlier (and they held onto their consecrated nature), but because the fellowship overcomes the geographic distance and includes the family, the recipient and those in the pews.

I find these two practices, which seem to be somewhat opposed, to be quite surprising, particularly give that they grew from the same basic understanding of the Real Presence.

I'd appreciate responses -- and corrections where appropriate.

Thanks! -Cloy
We (I'm not in ECUSA, but I am Anglican) have similar, but not exact views on Communion yes.

[trooper]

You could find any number of practices within ECUSA, though my particular leaning would say that once the elements have been consecrated they remain the BODY AND BLOOD.

[RedneckAnglican]

speaking as someone who has been both ELCA and ECUSA it has always seemed to me that communion (or Eucharist) is whatever the individual makes of it...the Book of Common Prayer says on page873 that eucharist is







The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among




themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s

death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread

which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a

partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the

Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture,

overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and

spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the

Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s

of course this was written in 1801...

[Bonifatius]

Hi Cloy,

as far as I can see there is indeed a difference in belief between Anglicans and Lutherans. As you point out most Lutherans believe in Real Presence as Anglicans do. But for Luther the focus is on the real presence of Christ's body and blood in with and under the elements "in usu" (in use - meaning during the celebration of the sacrament). There is no change in the elements themselves, as the doctrine of transsubstantiation would say. For Luther faith was central to his understanding of the sacraments and therefore he got very close to say that it is faith that makes the presence of Christ - without faith no presence. On the other hand he tried to keep the catholic teaching that the presence of Christ is a reality that does not depend on the faith of the partaking faithful but is a reality in itself. Be that as it may, for Luther the real presence ends when the service is over.
Many, not all Anglicans believe in transsubstantiation. But even the Anglicans who don't would say that there is some sort of "change" in the elements during the Eucharistic prayer or consecration that will last after the service is over. Bread is not just bread any more, but the body of Christ. The real presence of the body and blood of Christ is not just "in, with, and under" bread and wine, but their reality has somehow changed into being body and blood of Christ. So you'll find a tabernacle in many Anglican churches. The idea of taking the remains of the bread home for supper is totally alien to the Anglican understanding of consecration.

Greetings
Tom

[ctobola]

Hi Cloy,

as far as I can see there is indeed a difference in belief between Anglicans and Lutherans. As you point out most Lutherans believe in Real Presence as Anglicans do. But for Luther the focus is on the real presence of Christ's body and blood in with and under the elements "in usu" (in use - meaning during the celebration of the sacrament). There is no change in the elements themselves, as the doctrine of transsubstantiation would say. For Luther faith was central to his understanding of the sacraments and therefore he got very close to say that it is faith that makes the presence of Christ - without faith no presence. On the other hand he tried to keep the catholic teaching that the presence of Christ is a reality that does not depend on the faith of the partaking faithful but is a reality in itself. Be that as it may, for Luther the real presence ends when the service is over.
Many, not all Anglicans believe in transsubstantiation. But even the Anglicans who don't would say that there is some sort of "change" in the elements during the Eucharistic prayer or consecration that will last after the service is over. Bread is not just bread any more, but the body of Christ. The real presence of the body and blood of Christ is not just "in, with, and under" bread and wine, but their reality has somehow changed into being body and blood of Christ. So you'll find a tabernacle in many Anglican churches. The idea of taking the remains of the bread home for supper is totally alien to the Anglican understanding of consecration.

Greetings
Tom

Tom,

Thanks for your comments. Interesting thoughts, but in my understanding of the Lutheran doctrine the wine and the bread DO undergo an ontological change -- not because of our faith, but because of Christ's promise.

As Lutherans, the central thread that runs through our faith is that God is in control of all things at all times. (Actually, the works of Robert Farrar Capon have deepened my own appreciation of that concept.) Ergo, it is not us drawing down Christ and somehow capturing him in the elements -- it is Him coming to us. (Another constant in the Lutheran faith -- "He comes to us.") We do not believe this is a merely a memorial, but that he is substantiallly and essentially present in the bread and wine.

Similarly, we believe that since he is in control, he has not promised nor is obliged to remain sitting in the tabernacle of an empty building waiting upon us.

Excelsior! -Cloy