Receptionism within the Lutheran church

[PsaltiChrysostom]

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

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

Hmmm. I know little of anything about this. One question that pops into my mind is whether the different synods or branches of Lutheranism treat this differently. Anyone know?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I only know what the LCMS practices were. According to the ELS (which would include WELS), their practice is the same. According to the Formula of Concord, "nothing has the character of a Sacrament outside of its intended use," basically, the communion elements are not a Sacrament.

That being said, I think there is something that in the Formula that addresses a number of items. First and foremost was the Lutheran objection to the Corpus Christi processions. Basically, because the Corpus Christi is not a part of Christ's command of "Take and eat" and "Take and drink", it is outside of its intended use. Second, the Lutheran view also avoids various scholastic questions like "if a church mouse eats a host, has it consumed the Body of Christ."

The problem that I began having with the LCMS practice of putting consecrated hosts or wine back into containers that leads back to a question of the consecration. The Lutheran view is that the sacramental union (from the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord) is that

​

Thus it is not our word or speaking but the command and ordinance of Christ that, from the beginning of the first Communion until the end of the world, make the bread the body and the wine the blood that are daily distributed through our ministry and office. Again, "Here, too, if I were to say over all the bread there is, 'This is the body of Christ,' nothing would happen, but when we follow his institution and command in the Lord’s Supper and say, 'This is my body,' then it is his body, not because of our speaking or of our efficacious word, but because of his command in which he has told us so to speak and to do and has attached his own command and deed to our speaking."​

​

There are LCMS church which do practice what the early Lutherans did which was to consume any remaining elements such as this LCMS parish in Michigan. Sacramental Union and Handling of the Elements

The continual tradition of the Lutheran Church has been to display great care and reverence to the elements used in the Lord’s Supper. At St. Mary’s Lutheran Church in Wittenberg—and wherever the Lutheran Reformers taught—the preferred practice for treatment of the remaining communion elements after the last parishioner communed was to have them consumed by the pastor(s) and elders. Luther and Bugenhagen explained that to avoid having hosts left over they counted out the hosts to match the number of communicants at each service.​

​

But as you can read from the ELS practice is that once the liturgical act is over, there is nothing remaining of the consecration. So if the sacramental union is a parallel to the union of the divine and human natures of Christ, then why would the union end at the end of the liturgical act.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I only know what the LCMS practices were. According to the ELS (which would include WELS), their practice is the same. According to the Formula of Concord, "nothing has the character of a Sacrament outside of its intended use," basically, the communion elements are not a Sacrament.

That being said, I think there is something that in the Formula that addresses a number of items. First and foremost was the Lutheran objection to the Corpus Christi processions. Basically, because the Corpus Christi is not a part of Christ's command of "Take and eat" and "Take and drink", it is outside of its intended use. Second, the Lutheran view also avoids various scholastic questions like "if a church mouse eats a host, has it consumed the Body of Christ."

The problem that I began having with the LCMS practice of putting consecrated hosts or wine back into containers that leads back to a question of the consecration. The Lutheran view is that the sacramental union (from the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord) is that

​

Thus it is not our word or speaking but the command and ordinance of Christ that, from the beginning of the first Communion until the end of the world, make the bread the body and the wine the blood that are daily distributed through our ministry and office. Again, "Here, too, if I were to say over all the bread there is, 'This is the body of Christ,' nothing would happen, but when we follow his institution and command in the Lord’s Supper and say, 'This is my body,' then it is his body, not because of our speaking or of our efficacious word, but because of his command in which he has told us so to speak and to do and has attached his own command and deed to our speaking."​

​

There are LCMS church which do practice what the early Lutherans did which was to consume any remaining elements such as this LCMS parish in Michigan. Sacramental Union and Handling of the Elements

The continual tradition of the Lutheran Church has been to display great care and reverence to the elements used in the Lord’s Supper. At St. Mary’s Lutheran Church in Wittenberg—and wherever the Lutheran Reformers taught—the preferred practice for treatment of the remaining communion elements after the last parishioner communed was to have them consumed by the pastor(s) and elders. Luther and Bugenhagen explained that to avoid having hosts left over they counted out the hosts to match the number of communicants at each service.​

​

But as you can read from the ELS practice is that once the liturgical act is over, there is nothing remaining of the consecration. So if the sacramental union is a parallel to the union of the divine and human natures of Christ, then why would the union end at the end of the liturgical act.

I'm not a Lutheran so I wouldn't know why they think it all goes away at the end of their liturgy. In a Catholic church we have reserved Eucharist, a candle lit 24/7 next to the tabernacle, we have occasional benedictions with a host in a monstrance, some churches have frequent or even perpetual adoration, and Corpus Christi processions have been a part of my last two parishes annually. So quite different than Lutheran receptionism.

Back in college one of my church history professors was quite interested in Eucharistic reservation. I found a book in a used bookstore called 'Eucharistic Reservation' by Archdale A. King, done in 1965. The professor metaphorically turned cartwheels when I gave him the book. Turns out that was sort of THE book on the subject. I imagine it is exquisitely rare now.

I hope to hear from some Lutherans soon. You were once Lutheran. My mom was Lutheran. But we're kind of outsiders.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I'm not a Lutheran so I wouldn't know why they think it all goes away at the end of their liturgy. In a Catholic church we have reserved Eucharist, a candle lit 24/7 next to the tabernacle, we have occasional benedictions with a host in a monstrance, some churches have frequent or even perpetual adoration, and Corpus Christi processions have been a part of my last two parishes annually. So quite different than Lutheran receptionism.

Back in college one of my church history professors was quite interested in Eucharistic reservation. I found a book in a used bookstore called 'Eucharistic Reservation' by Archdale A. King, done in 1965. The professor metaphorically turned cartwheels when I gave him the book. Turns out that was sort of THE book on the subject. I imagine it is exquisitely rare now.

I hope to hear from some Lutherans soon. You were once Lutheran. My mom was Lutheran. But we're kind of outsiders.

To be honest, the Lutheran POV is not truly "receptionism" which has an Anglican origin. Taken from Wikipedia

Receptionism is a form of Anglican eucharistic theology which teaches that during the Eucharist the bread and wine remain unchanged after the consecration, but when communicants receive the bread and wine, they also receive the body and blood of Christ by faith.[1][2] It was a common view among Anglicans in the 16th and 17th centuries, and prominent theologians who subscribed to this doctrine were Thomas Cranmer and Richard Hooker.​

Orthodox, on Maundy Thursday, reserve a portion of the Eucharist and put it in a monstrance not for adoration but for communion for the sick when a priest would not be able to conduct a liturgy. On the Sundays of Lent, a second loaf of bread and chalice are also consecrated on Sunday. Those are then used on Wednesday nights for the pre-sanctified liturgy.

 

[chevyontheriver]

To be honest, the Lutheran POV is not truly "receptionism" which has an Anglican origin.

There is a lot of moving together among Episcopalians and some kinds of Lutherans. Even sharing of ministers. Could that explain some of it?

Orthodox, on Maundy Thursday, reserve a portion of the Eucharist and put it in a monstrance not for adoration but for communion for the sick when a priest would not be able to conduct a liturgy. On the Sundays of Lent, a second loaf of bread and chalice are also consecrated on Sunday. Those are then used on Wednesday nights for the pre-sanctified liturgy.

Catholics don't have liturgies on Good Friday either, so when the altar is stripped the reserved Eucharist is moved to a separate tabernacle. Must be almost the same. But every other day of the year we have Mass. That would mean we would not have to save any, but nonetheless we always do. For the sick, but also for benediction or adoration or procession.

Do Lutherans save the Eucharist in case of a sick call?

 

[Markie Boy]

We know the Last Supper was a Passover meal. Those that believe in the real presence, they generally believe the Eucharist tradition was started at the Last Supper.

We have zero instruction in the New Testament what to do with left over bread and wine. But if we follow the rules of the Passover - the only guide we have from Exodus - everything had to be eaten, and what was left was to be burned.

If we follow that, there simply should be no left-overs. We have no written instructions to do otherwise.

 

[JM]

What is the motivation behind starting this thread? When the original poster tried this in the Lutheran forum he was corrected and told he was mistaken and not properly instructed.

(How to take the chalice during Holy Communion?)

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

What is the motivation behind starting this thread? When the original poster tried this in the Lutheran forum he was corrected and told he was mistaken and not properly instructed.

(How to take the chalice during Holy Communion?)

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.

 

[JM]

Let's start here:

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.​

​

We didn't object to you posting, go back and read the thread, we objected to you taking what amounts to bad catechesis and turning it into "this is what Lutherans believe..." Lutherans DO NOT BELIEVE in the receptionist view, this is an abbreviation in teaching, poor confessional catechesis.

I understand your pride was hurt but that wasn't the intent of us correcting your false understanding of confessional Lutheranism. This happens often where someone moves from one denomination into another and all of sudden they take the low road apologetic move making poorest example the norm.

It's weak.

It's sad.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Let's start here:

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.​

​

We didn't object to you posting, go back and read the thread, we objected to you taking what amounts to bad catechesis and turning it into "this is what Lutherans believe..." Lutherans DO NOT BELIEVE in the receptionist view, this is an abbreviation in teaching, poor confessional catechesis.

I understand your pride was hurt but that wasn't the intent of us correcting your false understanding of confessional Lutheranism. This happens often where someone moves from one denomination into another and all of sudden they take the low road apologetic move making poorest example the norm.

It's weak.

It's sad.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

So here's a statement from a current LCMS pastor from Clarksville TN from 2021. And if all you have is ad hominem attacks, then please present me with specific statements from the LCMS that I am wrong.

The question of at what point Christ is present and at what point, if any, Christ is no longer present is a separate issue from the question of the usus of the Sacrament. They might be related but they are not the same. The sad reality is that even some of the great names of Lutheranism have wandered into the weeds in this question, doing exactly what Lutherans insist they do not do, allowing reason or logic to answer instead of simple Scripture. So it is true that David Chytraeus, Andreas Quenstedt, CFW Walther, Wilhelm Loehe, and Franz Pieper have written in such way that it appears they believe the presence of Christ happens at the reception and there is no presence in the distribution or in the reliquae that remain after the distribution. Some, in making this judgment, have cited exceptional circumstances -- spillage, for example. Because they do not want to believe Christ's blood would be spilled, they have presumed it cannot be spilled because it is not present yet. It is a little like heading down the path of what might be if a man were alone on a desert island. Rules from such unusual circumstances are seldom helpful and may violate the very truths of our confession.​

​

The problem of the usus

Lutherans have always had a problem when it comes to the moment of Christ's presence in the Sacrament. On the one hand, we have taken great...

pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com

David Last, in 1978, wrote the following Master's Thesis at Concordia St. Louis.

Then there is Dr. Edward W.A. Koehler was a member of the faculty of Concordia Teachers College in River Forest, Illinois from 1909-1951. In 1939, his Summary of Christian Doctrine was published. ...​

"The sacramental union, therefore, is not effected by the pastor's consecration of the bread and wine, but it obtains only in the bread and wine we eat and drink, and while we eat and drink them. We have no Biblical ground to assume that the bread is the body of Christ before we eat it, and that it continues to be the body of Christ after we have eaten it."(38)​

Even WELS professors wrote in 1974

And what should he done with the consecrated elements after the communion, according to Schuetze and Habeck?​

The premise must stand that apart from the sacrament the elements are only bread and wine. Whatever consecrated elements are not
used in the sacrament cannot be considered the Lord's body and blood unless one holds to the Roman doctrine of the transubstantiation. There is no scriptural reason why they may not be saved for another communion, at which time they will, of course, again be consecrated. (48)​

​

https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=mdiv

​

So do you have something in writing that demonstrates something against my view that the LCMS has mixed theology, both consecrationist and semi-receptionist views or are you going to say again that I was poorly educated by Fort Wayne Concordia seminary students and faculty? It took me 4 years to finally break from the LCMS. I discussed my issues with several pastors, my best man from my wedding who was in seminary at the time, as well as the district president over those 4 long years. I hold no bad feelings for the LCMS and even today, I still break out my 1941 copy of the Lutheran hymnal and sing various services and hymns.

 

[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 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 consecrating elements on Maundy Thursday for use in a pre-consecrated mass on Good Friday.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

So here's a statement from a current LCMS pastor from Clarksville TN from 2021. And if all you have is ad hominem attacks, then please present me with specific statements from the LCMS that I am wrong.

The question of at what point Christ is present and at what point, if any, Christ is no longer present is a separate issue from the question of the usus of the Sacrament. They might be related but they are not the same. The sad reality is that even some of the great names of Lutheranism have wandered into the weeds in this question, doing exactly what Lutherans insist they do not do, allowing reason or logic to answer instead of simple Scripture. So it is true that David Chytraeus, Andreas Quenstedt, CFW Walther, Wilhelm Loehe, and Franz Pieper have written in such way that it appears they believe the presence of Christ happens at the reception and there is no presence in the distribution or in the reliquae that remain after the distribution. Some, in making this judgment, have cited exceptional circumstances -- spillage, for example. Because they do not want to believe Christ's blood would be spilled, they have presumed it cannot be spilled because it is not present yet. It is a little like heading down the path of what might be if a man were alone on a desert island. Rules from such unusual circumstances are seldom helpful and may violate the very truths of our confession.​

​

The problem of the usus

Lutherans have always had a problem when it comes to the moment of Christ's presence in the Sacrament. On the one hand, we have taken great...

pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com

David Last, in 1978, wrote the following Master's Thesis at Concordia St. Louis.

Then there is Dr. Edward W.A. Koehler was a member of the faculty of Concordia Teachers College in River Forest, Illinois from 1909-1951. In 1939, his Summary of Christian Doctrine was published. ...​

"The sacramental union, therefore, is not effected by the pastor's consecration of the bread and wine, but it obtains only in the bread and wine we eat and drink, and while we eat and drink them. We have no Biblical ground to assume that the bread is the body of Christ before we eat it, and that it continues to be the body of Christ after we have eaten it."(38)​

Even WELS professors wrote in 1974

And what should he done with the consecrated elements after the communion, according to Schuetze and Habeck?​

The premise must stand that apart from the sacrament the elements are only bread and wine. Whatever consecrated elements are not​

used in the sacrament cannot be considered the Lord's body and blood unless one holds to the Roman doctrine of the transubstantiation. There is no scriptural reason why they may not be saved for another communion, at which time they will, of course, again be consecrated. (48)​

​

https://scholar.csl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=mdiv

​

So do you have something in writing that demonstrates something against my view that the LCMS has mixed theology, both consecrationist and semi-receptionist views or are you going to say again that I was poorly educated by Fort Wayne Concordia seminary students and faculty? It took me 4 years to finally break from the LCMS. I discussed my issues with several pastors, my best man from my wedding who was in seminary at the time, as well as the district president over those 4 long years. I hold no bad feelings for the LCMS and even today, I still break out my 1941 copy of the Lutheran hymnal and sing various services and hymns.

The application of human logic is the problem.
Scripture puts no such conditions on the validity and efficacy; why should the church. As Luther said; it is what it is.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

The application of human logic is the problem.
Scripture puts no such conditions on the validity and efficacy; why should the church. As Luther said; it is what it is.

I'm just trying to point out that there is a discrepancy in how Luther and the early Lutherans approached the communion elements vs. the current practice of the LCMS.

Ill request that the thread be closed.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Let's start here:

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.​

​

We didn't object to you posting, go back and read the thread, we objected to you taking what amounts to bad catechesis and turning it into "this is what Lutherans believe..." Lutherans DO NOT BELIEVE in the receptionist view, this is an abbreviation in teaching, poor confessional catechesis.

I understand your pride was hurt but that wasn't the intent of us correcting your false understanding of confessional Lutheranism. This happens often where someone moves from one denomination into another and all of sudden they take the low road apologetic move making poorest example the norm.

It's weak.

It's sad.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Please, all of you, play nicely. This is one of the few small corners of CF where I don't feel that someone will jump down my throat for having an opinion that is not theirs. This place has been described even as being 'genteel'. We can do better.

Without knowing anything really about 'receptionism' I asked a few questions that nobody picked up on because this thread became about one particular poster. Can the thread be saved? Can it be informative again rather than hostile?

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Please, all of you, play nicely. This is one of the few small corners of CF where I don't feel that someone will jump down my throat for having an opinion that is not theirs. This place has been described even as being 'genteel'. We can do better.

Without knowing anything really about 'receptionism' I asked a few questions that nobody picked up on because this thread became about one particular poster. Can the thread be saved? Can it be informative again rather than hostile?

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.

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

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

Thank you.

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.

A Catholic priest could do the same. Often Catholic lay people visit the sick and they can take the reserved Eucharist with them on a sick call.

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

That's quite a list and I'm guessing there is a chunk of doctrinal diversity, at least in the sense of what they would have believed 100 years ago. I know the WELS and LCMS are much less adventuresome. Which is why I would prefer an ecumenism with the latter. Just me though, and not terribly reciprocated, though I think effort in that direction would be more rewarding if the higher hurdles could be overcome.

I get the idea from the most recent posts that WELS and LCMS are much less receptionist. And for myself I wouldn't be receptionist at all. Anyway, I need to do a quick trip to the store. Fish for dinner and I have to get some things first.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Thank you.

A Catholic priest could do the same. Often Catholic lay people visit the sick and they can take the reserved Eucharist with them on a sick call.

That's quite a list and I'm guessing there is a chunk of doctrinal diversity, at least in the sense of what they would have believed 100 years ago. I know the WELS and LCMS are much less adventuresome. Which is why I would prefer an ecumenism with the latter. Just me though, and not terribly reciprocated, though I think effort in that direction would be more rewarding if the higher hurdles could be overcome.

I get the idea from the most recent posts that WELS and LCMS are much less receptionist. And for myself I wouldn't be receptionist at all. Anyway, I need to do a quick trip to the store. Fish for dinner and I have to get some things first.

I am not sure if this is still a thing or not, but it was my understanding that a Catholic Priest was restricted to the number of Masses he could celebrate per day; which explains employing pre-consecrated elements. Lutheran clergy are under no such restrictions, I sometimes assist my Pastor when he visits sick and home-bound members. We have done as many as 4 or 5 in a day; sometimes for groups, often for individuals. Some years ago I was gravely ill and my Pastor did this for me and what a comfort and blessing it was for me.

While no fellowship agreements between the confessional Lutheran Churches and the Catholic Church, it is no secret that for some time now there have been friendly informal discussions locally and organized formal discussions in both Canada and the US, Also, formal discussions on an international level between the International Lutheran Council and the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Prompting Christian Unity (WELS is not a member of the ILC). Second from left is Dr. Robert Bugby who at that time was our National Bishop of Lutheran Church Canada:

Here are some links if you are interested:
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the International Lutheran Council (ILC) to Hold Informal International Dialogue - International Lutheran Council

Ecumenical Dialogue - International Lutheran Council

Grounded in the authority of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, the International Lutheran Council participates in responsible ecumenical dialogue. At its 2018 World Conference in Antwerp, Belgium, the ILC adopted a statement on “Confessional Identity and Ecumenical Responsibility.“ The...

ilc-online.org

2022 World Conference: ILC approves further ecumenical discussions with the Roman Catholic Church - International Lutheran Council

KENYA – On September 16, 2022 the International Lutheran Council’s (ILC) 2022 World Conference adopted a resolution calling for continued ecumenical conversations with the Roman Catholic Church, and approving the Final Report of the conversations of the ILC and the Pontifical Council for...

ilc-online.org

Also, here in Canada there has been formal dialogue here in Ontario Canada which were held at our Sem in St. Catherine's:
Catholic-Lutheran dialogue in Canada continues - The Canadian Lutheran

These are blessed times.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I am not sure if this is still a thing or not, but it was my understanding that a Catholic Priest was restricted to the number of Masses he could celebrate per day; which explains employing pre-consecrated elements. Lutheran clergy are under no such restrictions, I sometimes assist my Pastor when he visits sick and home-bound members. We have done as many as 4 or 5 in a day; sometimes for groups, often for individuals. Some years ago I was gravely ill and my Pastor did this for me and what a comfort and blessing it was for me.

View attachment 336963

Yup, The norm is once a day, with extenuating circumstances allowing up to three tops. Straight out of the code of canon law. I don't remember what the old 1917 code of canon law had but if it had anything I bet it was similar. Priests are expected to say mass every day, which is how my parish with two priests can have mass twice on weekdays, early morning and noon. They both have more than a hundred people attend. But yes, reserving the Eucharist makes multiple sick calls by priests possible and laity to bring the Eucharist too. A priest would still be necessary for confession or the anointing of the sick though a lay person could and would still pray with the person.

While no fellowship agreements between the confessional Lutheran Churches and the Catholic Church, it is no secret that for some time now there have been friendly informal discussions locally and organized formal discussions in both Canada and the US, Also, formal discussions on an international level between the International Lutheran Council and the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Prompting Christian Unity (WELS is not a member of the ILC).

Here are some links if you are interested:
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) and the International Lutheran Council (ILC) to Hold Informal International Dialogue - International Lutheran Council

Ecumenical Dialogue - International Lutheran Council

Grounded in the authority of Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions, the International Lutheran Council participates in responsible ecumenical dialogue. At its 2018 World Conference in Antwerp, Belgium, the ILC adopted a statement on “Confessional Identity and Ecumenical Responsibility.“ The...

ilc-online.org

2022 World Conference: ILC approves further ecumenical discussions with the Roman Catholic Church - International Lutheran Council

KENYA – On September 16, 2022 the International Lutheran Council’s (ILC) 2022 World Conference adopted a resolution calling for continued ecumenical conversations with the Roman Catholic Church, and approving the Final Report of the conversations of the ILC and the Pontifical Council for...

ilc-online.org

Also, here in Canada there has been formal dialogue here in Ontario Canada which were held at our Sem in St. Catherine's:
Catholic-Lutheran dialogue in Canada continues - The Canadian Lutheran

These are blessed times.

I am glad to hear it. I used to live near Luther Northwestern Seminary when I was in Minneapolis at the University of Minnesota. To get to the St. Paul campus of the U of M I would often walk through the seminary. And I frequent bookstores so I frequented their bookstore too, which doubled at the time as the bookstore for the Catholic seminary in St. Paul. I even attended the blessing of their at the time new pipe organ. I saw and heard too much I guess. The campus was headed woke with a passion long before it was mainstream. At least evidenced by their public bulletin boards. I overheard a very anti-Catholic discussion by some seminarians about those nasty Catholics because they didn't ordain women. Hopeless troglodytes we were.

This same campus had been a hotbed of Lutheran/Catholic dialogue a generation before. It had been very hopeful, though a bit premature in thinking they had actually solved things. That's mostly stuck in neutral now, with some slippage back down the hill. Mostly because those Lutherans really changed. My own occasional discussions and readings about LCMS and WELS makes me think they are the more worthwhile partners anyway. WELS considers creationism one of the prime articles of faith it seems, but otherwise both seem to be solidly Christian. I lost that sense at LNW. I ended up a bit creeped out walking through Luther Northwestern Seminary, with a feeling I didn't have since I was little and spending a summer at St. Augustine College in Raleigh where my dad was taking a course, wondering about the KKK lynching my friend because of the color of his skin and lynching me too because I was Catholic.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yup, The norm is once a day, with extenuating circumstances allowing up to three tops. Straight out of the code of canon law. I don't remember what the old 1917 code of canon law had but if it had anything I bet it was similar. Priests are expected to say mass every day, which is how my parish with two priests can have mass twice on weekdays, early morning and noon. They both have more than a hundred people attend. But yes, reserving the Eucharist makes multiple sick calls by priests possible and laity to bring the Eucharist too. A priest would still be necessary for confession or the anointing of the sick though a lay person could and would still pray with the person.

I am glad to hear it. I used to live near Luther Northwestern Seminary when I was in Minneapolis at the University of Minnesota. To get to the St. Paul campus of the U of M I would often walk through the seminary. And I frequent bookstores so I frequented their bookstore too, which doubled at the time as the bookstore for the Catholic seminary in St. Paul. I even attended the blessing of their at the time new pipe organ. I saw and heard too much I guess. The campus was headed woke with a passion long before it was mainstream. At least evidenced by their public bulletin boards. I overheard a very anti-Catholic discussion by some seminarians about those nasty Catholics because they didn't ordain women. Hopeless troglodytes we were.

This same campus had been a hotbed of Lutheran/Catholic dialogue a generation before. It had been very hopeful, though a bit premature in thinking they had actually solved things. That's mostly stuck in neutral now, with some slippage back down the hill. Mostly because those Lutherans really changed. My own occasional discussions and readings about LCMS and WELS makes me think they are the more worthwhile partners anyway. WELS considers creationism one of the prime articles of faith it seems, but otherwise both seem to be solidly Christian. I lost that sense at LNW. I ended up a bit creeped out walking through Luther Northwestern Seminary, with a feeling I didn't have since I was little and spending a summer at St. Augustine College in Raleigh where my dad was taking a course, wondering about the KKK lynching my friend because of the color of his skin and lynching me too because I was Catholic.

Even if our Churches never reach a full fellowship agreement, our relations are very friendly, and have been for some time. It does seem to me that we may have been a bit closer when Benedict was Pope; Francis seems a bit "liberal" in ways that seem at odds with our theology.

I do consider you a friend; we do seem to be on the same page most of the time; and when we are not, we are in the same book.