Question: What do Lutherans do with the surplus of the Eucharist?

[Nagomirov]

Question: What do Lutherans do with the surplus of the Eucharist? When everyone has received communion and there is too much left, are there leftovers, are they thrown away?

Question: are they thrown out, or are they eaten to the end so that there is nothing left?

 

[Nagomirov]

Such a thought came to my mind, or rather a question: so at the Last Supper, did the Apostles eat everything to the end that was the Body and Blood of Christ, or were there any surpluses left? It could also be that the smallest part was transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, at the level of one large piece of bread, which was divided into parts and distributed by Christ to the disciples, and these parts were eaten completely. And as for the cup of wine, there was one cup of wine that could be drunk completely. Or there were some remnants that could be treated as Lutherans treat the Eucharistic remnants, that after the Supper, these remnants no longer mattered. That's what's interesting. Going further, I had thoughts that the Apostles did not wash the cup with water after the wine, so that there would be no traces of wine left there, as they do now in historical churches. The apostles did not keep track of the crumbs, and now, the priest is careful not to drop a single crumb in the Eucharist. The priests of the Byzantine rite, when they receive communion at the altar, even blow crumbs into themselves from their palms, because they held the Body of Christ in their hands. But again, I do not know if unleavened bread crumbles, if suddenly Christ and the Apostles used it. I do not know which bread they used - yeast or unleavened. In addition, Christ, who had already risen, broke bread in front of the disciples who were going to Emmaus. Whether it was the Eucharist, or the type of Agape, or just broke bread. If suddenly it was the Eucharist, then again there is a question of crumbs. Regarding the event with the disciples going to Emmaus, St. Augustine and most of the other commentators along with him thought that Christ gave bread not as an ordinary meal, but as His Body. And even Pope John Paul II suggests that yes, the Eucharist was celebrated. As a rule, they argue that the pupils' eyes have opened. Calvin simply explains that the disciples recognized Christ by their usual form of prayer, to which the disciples were accustomed.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Question: What do Lutherans do with the surplus of the Eucharist? When everyone has received communion and there is too much left, are there leftovers, are they thrown away?

Question: are they thrown out, or are they eaten to the end so that there is nothing left?

According to Archdale A. King in 'Eucharistic Reservation in the Western Church', Sheed and Ward (1965) there was some historic Lutheran reservation of unconsumed Eucharist in the Lutheran tradition. I no longer have the book, having given it away, so I can't reply with specifics. Nor do I know whether there is any current practice of reservation in any Lutheran synods.

 

[Daniel9v9]

We could spend a lot of time with this, but the only good practice in my estimation is to consume it in accordance with the words of our Lord. All other practices open the door to doubt and confusion, or at worst, irreverence and sin. This is the policy in our church, and I think most confessional Lutherans would be inclined to agree.

Practically, it's not that complicated. The clergy should be able to make a fair estimate of how much bread and wine needs to be consecrated, and in the event that there's too much left over for the clergy to consume, other church members can help. And if people are concerned about consecrating too much, it could be better to consecrate less, then consecrate more according to the need.

 

[tampasteve]

It depends on the synod and even the parish. I attended one parish (ELCA) that had a Tabernacle where the some of the leftover consecrated elements were retained for house visits later in the day. I have attended other parishes (ELCA and LCMS) where the consecrated elements were consumed in their entirety during the service.

 

[RileyG]

We could spend a lot of time with this, but the only good practice in my estimation is to consume it in accordance with the words of our Lord. All other practices open the door to doubt and confusion, or at worst, irreverence and sin. This is the policy in our church, and I think most confessional Lutherans would be inclined to agree.

Practically, it's not that complicated. The clergy should be able to make a fair estimate of how much bread and wine needs to be consecrated, and in the event that there's too much left over for the clergy to consume, other church members can help. And if people are concerned about consecrating too much, it could be better to consecrate less, then consecrate more according to the need.

Pastor, if the Eucharist isn't consumed at the end of the service, does it stop being the Body and Blood of Christ? Or, what is the teaching on this?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Pastor, if the Eucharist isn't consumed at the end of the service, does it stop being the Body and Blood of Christ? Or, what is the teaching on this?

Perhaps it's helpful to think about it this way:

We have no record of Christ nor the apostles saying anything explicit about when exactly the Sacrament ceases to be a Sacrament. But we do have records of the institution, and we also have the OT background and NT commentary on it! So what we do know, is that we are to receive it and consume it. There really isn't any other way.

Now, we also understand that the Church is not divorced from history, and so we value tradition. But we hold that tradition must be governed by Scripture, which we know is apostolic. So we treat later commentary on the Sacrament exactly as that — commentary but not inspired.

I'd be glad to expand on this controversy, but in brief: (A) We receive the Sacrament as given to us in accordance with God's Word. That eliminates any need for speculation or doubt. (B) In the unlikely event that Sacrament must be discarded (I don't think there are many scenarios where there is a must!), we are to treat it with the highest reverence. In the OT it meant burning the Passover Lamb, so many follow this ancient tradition.

So, I'm forced to give you a non-answer, because God's Word doesn't say when the elements stop being the body and blood of Christ. It only constrains them to the Sacrament, proper, which consists of three parts: (1) The blessing or consecration, (2) the distribution and receiving, and (3) the sacramental eating and drinking. Anything outside of this is beyond God's Word.

You can find our formal confession regarding this in The Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration, VII, The Eucharist. I'd recommend reading the whole thing but I think what you're looking for specifically is touched on in 14-15 and 83.

We've published it here:

The Solid Declaration – Luco

luco.the-rejected-stone.com

Finally, I can add that it can perhaps be helpful to consider the words of Christ when He says "... this is ...". I think most who have studied dogmatics and church history, even in different traditions, will recognise that there has been a lot of debate and reflection on these words. But a good insight from the controversy, I believe, is this:

The "this" in the sentence is not strictly the bread and the wine, but the Sacrament, the Holy Mystery. So when Jesus is saying: "Take, eat; this is My body", understanding it as "Take, eat; this bread is My body" is not wrong, but not a full understanding. A better and richer understanding would be something like "Take, eat; this thing, this mystery, is My body". That is, Jesus isn't giving us special bread and wine, but a Holy Mystery. So the point here is that we should be careful about divorcing the body and blood of our Lord from the Sacrament. It's best treated as one thing, one gift, one action. This is most certainly how the sacrificial system in the OT functioned, and because that is the foundation of the Eucharist, or in other words, the Eucharist is the culmination of the OT sacrificial system, it's good to treat it as such — with reverence and as one thing.

Hope this helps and I'd be glad to expand on any of this!

 

[Shane R]

I've seen people pour the extra wine back into the bottle because wine is expensive, donchaknow. I've also seen hosts chucked onto the ground in the flower bed outside the door. Neither of those are best practices.

 

[RileyG]

I've seen people pour the extra wine back into the bottle because wine is expensive, donchaknow. I've also seen hosts chucked onto the ground in the flower bed outside the door. Neither of those are best practices.

Really? That’s just..,.not very reverent to do that to the hosts.

 

[Markie Boy]

If the Last Supper was a Passover meal - one condition of the first Passover was that everything was to be eaten - or burned - nothing left.

The practice of saving some in a tabernacle is tradition only, as far as I can tell - and neither Scriptural or Apostolic.

 

[tampasteve]

If the Last Supper was a Passover meal - one condition of the first Passover was that everything was to be eaten - or burned - nothing left.

I believe that is/was just for the meat, you could have leftover bread and other items.

The practice of saving some in a tabernacle is tradition only, as far as I can tell - and neither Scriptural or Apostolic.

It also had practical reasons, holding it for home visits, a second service without a ordained minister but ordained deacon is present, etc.

 

[Markie Boy]

Far as I understand - Jesus is the Lamb - so there should be no Lamb left.

 

[tampasteve]

Far as I understand - Jesus is the Lamb - so there should be no Lamb left.

Except communion/the Eucharist is not actually Passover. We are told to do it often, unlike Passover, and the rules (what there are) of the Eucharist are not the same as for Passover.

 

[Markie Boy]

Except communion/the Eucharist is not actually Passover. We are told to do it often, unlike Passover, and the rules (what there are) of the Eucharist are not the same as for Passover.

I would have to agree with a lot of that.

In Scripture do we really get much for rules in the New Testament? It should be done orderly and considering others - but it seems it was a lot more of a meal, than a wafer and a sip.

 

[tampasteve]

I would have to agree with a lot of that.

In Scripture do we really get much for rules in the New Testament? It should be done orderly and considering others - but it seems it was a lot more of a meal, than a wafer and a sip.

Well, the event of the first Eucharist was also a Passover meal, and subsequently the historical evidence seems to point to the probability that the early Christians celebrated communion as part of the Saturday evening meal after the Sabbath ended. The Jewish tradition of breaking bread is part of the meal to this day. Being as it is not really possible to serve a full meal to a large group, as the church grew, it was pared down to just the actual communion elements. At least this is a very basic explanation as I understand it.

 

[Markie Boy]

Well, the event of the first Eucharist was also a Passover meal, and subsequently the historical evidence seems to point to the probability that the early Christians celebrated communion as part of the Saturday evening meal after the Sabbath ended. The Jewish tradition of breaking bread is part of the meal to this day. Being as it is not really possible to serve a full meal to a large group, as the church grew, it was pared down to just the actual communion elements. At least this is a very basic explanation as I understand it.

That is actually a really nice explanation - one that both makes sense, and seems in line with history.

I appreciate it compared to the Catholic responses that seem to just imply what they do now is what was always done.

I don't think communion on the tongue like in Latin Catholic churches was Apostolic at all from what I can find - it's a later man-made tradition.

 

[RileyG]

Well, the event of the first Eucharist was also a Passover meal, and subsequently the historical evidence seems to point to the probability that the early Christians celebrated communion as part of the Saturday evening meal after the Sabbath ended. The Jewish tradition of breaking bread is part of the meal to this day. Being as it is not really possible to serve a full meal to a large group, as the church grew, it was pared down to just the actual communion elements. At least this is a very basic explanation as I understand it.

I wasn’t aware of that. I always assumed they went to the synagogue on Saturday, and worshipped as a Christian community on Sunday. Interesting.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Well, the event of the first Eucharist was also a Passover meal, and subsequently the historical evidence seems to point to the probability that the early Christians celebrated communion as part of the Saturday evening meal after the Sabbath ended. The Jewish tradition of breaking bread is part of the meal to this day. Being as it is not really possible to serve a full meal to a large group, as the church grew, it was pared down to just the actual communion elements. At least this is a very basic explanation as I understand it.

The apocryphal Gospel of Peter written some time in the early part or middle of the second century makes reference to worshiping on Sunday. Such being the case, I think we can presume that at least a notable number were already celebrating on sundays. Sabbatarians are a fairly new innovation in Christianity I believe.

The first undisputed reference to Lord's Day is in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (verse 34,35 and 50), probably written about the middle of the 2nd century or perhaps the first half of that century. The Gospel of Peter 35 and 50 use kyriake as the name for the first day of the week, the day of Jesus' resurrection.​

Lord's Day - Wikipedia​

 

[tampasteve]

The apocryphal Gospel of Peter written some time in the early part or middle of the second century makes reference to worshiping on Sunday. Such being the case, I think we can presume that at least a notable number were already celebrating on sundays. Sabbatarians are a fairly new innovation in Christianity I believe.

The first undisputed reference to Lord's Day is in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter (verse 34,35 and 50), probably written about the middle of the 2nd century or perhaps the first half of that century. The Gospel of Peter 35 and 50 use kyriake as the name for the first day of the week, the day of Jesus' resurrection.​

Lord's Day - Wikipedia​

Oh, I definitely don't disagree that people were celebrating on "the Lord's Day", Sunday. I am simply saying that originally it seems like it was part of the Jewish rhythm of life, which would have placed in on Saturday night to end the Sabbath. Also, a LOT happened between the immediate time after Christ and the Gospel of Peter, likely including the expulsion from the synagogues and moves to distance Christianity from Judaism (and the other way as well).

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Oh, I definitely don't disagree that people were celebrating on "the Lord's Day", Sunday. I am simply saying that originally it seems like it was part of the Jewish rhythm of life, which would have placed in on Saturday night to end the Sabbath. Also, a LOT happened between the immediate time after Christ and the Gospel of Peter, likely including the expulsion from the synagogues and moves to distance Christianity from Judaism (and the other way as well).

After sun-down on Saturday would be considered Sunday.in Jewish tradition.