Adoration of the Elements

[itsjustdave1988]

ChemicalBean:

We cannot say that there is not a valid apostolic line of clergy in the Lutheran church right now any more that we can say that there is not a vaild apostolic line in the Anglican church. Those bishops at the time of reformation didn’t necessarily choose to be protestant; it was the princes of the area that chose for them! So, even with having their faculties removed by edict or by default, they would still retain the “fullness of the priesthood” and be able to validly (albeit illicitly) celebrate the sacraments. Thus, it it quite possible that with the Catholic understanding of apostolic succession and orders, that Christ is Really Present in the Lutheran Sacrament.

This is a terribly flawed conclusion, and shows a lack of study on the matter. If you think this represents the Catholic Church’s view on the matter, I recommend you study the theology of the Eucharist further, as well as what constitutes a valid ordination.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

First century bishop of Antioch, St. Ignatius, who learned his Catholicsim from St. John the Apostle directly, wrote:

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ" (*Letter to the Romans *7:3 [A.D. 110]).

It was not a symbol. It was not bread containing Jesus. The bread IS the flesh of Jesus.

I’ve hear many quibble over what the early Church taught on this, but St. Cyril of Jersulem in the 4th century was clear when he wrote Catechetical Lectures:

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (*Catechetical Lectures *19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Lutheran’s would have us believe St. Cyril was a heretic. Strange how nobody thought so in St. Cyril’s day. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon6.gif

 

[gardenswithkids]

LutheranStudent:

OK, I did have a role in starting the debate. You’ll have to forgive me, because as soon as we got into the idea of apostolic succession I launched into defense mode. I’ve been there before - and I’m afraid my faith in humankind (none at all) is not enough to warrant any sort of trust in it.

I’m glad to see we didn’t scare you away. Apology gladly accepted.

While it’s off topic and I understand you don’t want to pursue the discussion on apostolic succession at this time, I do want to share with you that my belief in apostolic succession really has nothing to do with my faith in humankind, (which is limited.) My belief in apostolic succession is entirely based on my faith in *God *and His power to protect the Church, despite the personal failings of the humans He uses as His tools. I don’t always trust the people in the Church, but I will always trust the Holy Spirit to protect His Church because Scripture tells us that He will.

 

[LutheranStudent]

Hello all,
I want you to know that I’ve gotta go. I got an e-mail from the forum admistrator telling me they’ve removed some of my comments and would prefer if I not post un-Catholic POVs in this thread. While I don’t completely understand, I am thankful for the courtesy of not ejecting me right off the bat. So I will comply and resign this thread. Thanks for discussing.

 

[Contarini]

The view presented as Lutheran in this thread is not the only one. Not all Lutherans historically have believed that the Presence ceases when the liturgy is over, and I don’t think this doctrine is taught in any of the Lutheran confessions, though I could be wrong there.

The same is true of adoration of Christ in the Eucharist. I don’t think Lutherans have ever (officially) condemned such adoration, and I suspect that hostility to the adoration of Christ in the context of the Eucharistic liturgy is the result of broad American Protestant trends rather than specifically Lutheran traditions. But I’m open to evidence to the contrary, not being Lutheran.

The more pro-Catholic line taken by some Lutherans at least (and which can I believe be backed up with passages from Luther) is that Adoration is appropriate within the celebration of the Sacrament but not outside it. Some Lutherans would say that this is not substantially different from the Orthodox position. They do not believe that this necessarily implies that Christ is no longer present, only that the Eucharist was instituted for the purpose of communion and should be used according to Christ’s institution rather than inventing additional forms of piety.

As far as I can tell, both the position I’ve described and that defended by Lutheran Student are compatible with historic Lutheranism. I believe that one of the points of difference between Lutherans and Reformed in late-16th-century Germany was that the Lutherans adored Christ in the elements (retaining the elevation, for instance), at least in some regions.

The position defended by Lutheran Student may owe more to Melanchthon (who was half-way to Calvin on this point) than to Luther.

Edwin

 

[Prometheum_x]

Actually, Lutherans wouldn’t consider St. Cyril a heretic. He would only be a Lutheran heretic if you put his words in the context of a modern day discussion which assumes the language of substance and accident.

To be honest, an authentic Lutheran position is one which leaves behind any extra-biblical philosophical terminology and confesses, "This which has the appearance of bread and wine – we know that there is the Real Presence of our Lord. We shall leave all discussion of scholastic terminology to those who find pleasure in it, but for us, we are content with the words of our Lord: “This is my body. . .”

The concept of *consubstantiation *is not a universally held Lutheran belief. It is more like a Lutheran attempt to explain their theology of the Eucharist in scholastic terms. I think they would have been much better off if they had never gotten into that debate in the first place and remained content with simple Biblical terminology, as Martin Luther uses in his Small Catechism

In an explanation for the Small Catechism prepared by the LCMS, the following is stated:

---

290. Do Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament replace the bread and wine, so that the bread and wine are no longer there?

No, bread and wine remain in the Sacrament.

936 1 Cor. 11:26 Whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

291. How then are the bread and wine in the Sacrament the body and blood of Christ?

The bread and wine in the Sacrament are Christ’s body and blood by sacramental union. By the power of His word, Christ gives His body and blood in, with, and under the consecrated (blessed) bread and wine.

937 1 Cor. 10:16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? (NKJV).

Source (download):
lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/explanation.rtf

It is imperative to understand that they are not using the language of substance and accident here. My personal contention is that the differences in Lutheran/Catholic Eucharistic theology has more to do with the language used than with the actual “substance” of the theology.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Contarini:

The view presented as Lutheran in this thread is not the only one. Not all Lutherans historically have believed that the Presence ceases when the liturgy is over, and I don’t think this doctrine is taught in any of the Lutheran confessions, though I could be wrong there.

The same is true of adoration of Christ in the Eucharist. I don’t think Lutherans have ever (officially) condemned such adoration, and I suspect that hostility to the adoration of Christ in the context of the Eucharistic liturgy is the result of broad American Protestant trends rather than specifically Lutheran traditions. But I’m open to evidence to the contrary, not being Lutheran.

The more pro-Catholic line taken by some Lutherans at least (and which can I believe be backed up with passages from Luther) is that Adoration is appropriate within the celebration of the Sacrament but not outside it. Some Lutherans would say that this is not substantially different from the Orthodox position. They do not believe that this necessarily implies that Christ is no longer present, only that the Eucharist was instituted for the purpose of communion and should be used according to Christ’s institution rather than inventing additional forms of piety.

As far as I can tell, both the position I’ve described and that defended by Lutheran Student are compatible with historic Lutheranism. I believe that one of the points of difference between Lutherans and Reformed in late-16th-century Germany was that the Lutherans adored Christ in the elements (retaining the elevation, for instance), at least in some regions.

The position defended by Lutheran Student may owe more to Melanchthon (who was half-way to Calvin on this point) than to Luther.

Edwin

Right on Edwin.

That’s part of the substance of this essay here, the link to which I posted and briefly discussed earlier.

In one section the essay states that all the remaining Eucharist must be consumed by the end of the liturgy so as to avoid going beyond the scope of Christ’s institution and creating the theological problem of what the status of unconsumed hosts is after the liturgy. Since the Lutheran can never fully answer that question beyond their own attempts to reason, it is best to avoid the situation entirely.

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

**Hi everyone, **
**I agree with Contarini. **I know there are exceptions to the rule; however, Lutherans in accordance with the Formula of Concord treat the Consecrated Elements with reverence when disposing of them due to the fact that they believe they cannot assume Jesus is no longer present once the service is over.

The following link explains…

http://www.lca.org.au/resources/cticr/dsto2reve2b.pdf

Love and peace to all,

Shari

 

[Chatter163]

Let’s take this back to topic with the observation that the OP did not say adoration was absurd. He or she said that it SEEMED absurd. Big diff.

And it does seem absurd to people who do not understand that we do not adore the unconsecrated **elements **of bread and wine but that we adore the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Actually, there is not much difference at all. When you ask a stranger about his beliefs, the word *absurd *should not be used at all. This is rude because whether or not the term is intended pejoratively, misuderstanding may easily follow.

There are many things about Buddhism that I personally find absurd, bit if I were asking a devout Buddhist about them–particularly in a Buddhist venue or forum–I would certainly not say that XYZ seemed absurd. That would be quite rude. I also would not use the word because clearly I was not informed enough to say one way or the other.

 

[mercygate]

Chatter163:

Actually, there is not much difference at all. When you ask a stranger about his beliefs, the word *absurd *should not be used at all. This is rude because whether or not the term is intended pejoratively, misuderstanding may easily follow.

There are many things about Buddhism that I personally find absurd, bit if I were asking a devout Buddhist about them–particularly in a Buddhist venue or forum–I would certainly not say that XYZ seemed absurd. That would be quite rude. I also would not use the word because clearly I was not informed enough to say one way or the other.

Even if someone seems rude, as Catholics and therefore *de facto *“hosts” here, we owe it to anyone posting such a question to respond as if the query has been made in good faith.

We have enough experience with anti-Catholic venom to understand that much of the nastiness we encounter is imbibed with mother’s milk, and that often people are unaware that they are being offensive. Often they have been taught that the Catholic position is diabolical, and they believe they are challenging the devil himself.

 

[barsapp]

LutheranStudent:

Why are there so many Protestant denoms if Scripture is so obvious? The only reply I can give you is because of sin. Because of sin the doctrine of full and free forgiveness to the repentant has been lost to most of American Lutheranism, in favor of apathy and indifference.

because of the sin… of heresy. because Protestantism is only a stop on the way to atheism.

 

[Tom]

LutheranStudent:

Beautiful to the Catholics, maybe. It gives you an opportunity to sneer and blindly follow those who claim apostolic succession is important.

And it was going so nicely till now… No one is sneering, nor is anyone “blindly following”

LutheranStudent:

But Lutherans recognize an authority higher than that of Bishops or hierarchies. We prefer to follow Scripture and the words and concepts - if you will, the faith - that is presented there. Apostolic succession has NO roots in Scripture, as other Catholics have admitted to me.

It would seem your description goes exactly against Scripture. Scripturally speaking, the Church is the highest authority.
drbo.org:

1 Timothy 3
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

As for bringing the Eucharist to the sick, it was usually the priest or deacon who brought it anyway.
drbo.org:

James 5,14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

 

[Tom]

LutheranStudent:

In that case, I would wonder (1) if it was presented as sacrament, and (2) just how early in the Christian church we are talking.

1st century
drbo.org:

James 5,14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

 

[TobyLue]

RobNY

“Christ held Himself in His hands when He gave His Body to His disciples saying: ‘This is My Body.’ No one partakes of this Flesh before he has adored it.”

- St. Augustine

Which of St. Augustine’s writing was this taken from? Do you know?

Thanks

 

[RobNY]

TobyLue:

RobNY

Which of St. Augustine’s writing was this taken from? Do you know?

Thanks

Hrm, I was browing the Real Presence site where I nabbed it-- I’ve usually found them reliable so I didn’t look it up.

I’m wondering, because I’ve usually seen that quote together with this second quote:

“Recognize in this bread what hung on the cross, and in this chalice what flowed from His side… whatever was in many and varied ways announced beforehand in the sacrifices of the Old Testament pertains to this one sacrifice which is revealed in the New Testament.” - from the writings of St. Augustine, Sermon 3, 2; circa A.D. 410 {original translation}

And the first one that you were wondering about is never cited, whereas this one almost always is.

Could it be made up? Possibly. I’d like to find it now. Perhaps it is in the same section as the second quote which is cited.