Such is the sarcasm and contempt of Luther for those who distance themselves from the Table of the Lord. We might well condemn Luther's words for being excessively harsh and hardly the winsome way to restore those who have fallen away. I daresay that you will not find any mention of this quote in those books that talk about how we might reclaim the lost. But this is a truth too often sidestepped in our day of niceties and politeness and so the point of his words is also lost on us. The Sacrament of the Altar is not an extra or an addendum to the spiritual life and piety of the Christ but part of its very essence and core.
The vast majority of books on piety are written by non-Lutherans and even those written by Lutherans tend to direct the devotional point to the Word alone and not the Sacrament. As such, we Lutherans have learned that the Sacrament is a little extra but not an essential ingredient to our spiritual identities and lives as Christian people. This is to our great loss and not without serious consequence.
The vacuum created when the Lord's Supper is absent from our piety and devotional life will, of necessity, be filled with something else. If not the Sacrament, then prayer or feelings or a spirituality divorced from the means of grace. In the end, we will find ourselves victims of the success of the evangelical publishing industry that churns out books as fast as it can. More and more our faith will begin to resemble that which feeds it (the devotional literature of evangelicalism). If we begin with a weak tie to the Sacrament of the Altar,the strong influence of popular evangelical literature will distance the Sacrament even further from our daily thoughts, prayers, and lives. It is then easier and easier to miss the Sacrament without thinking we are missing anything at all.
Let me illustrate. In a group of Lutheran lay folk I once asked how many had read the then popular Left Behind series and two thirds of the hands went up. I asked the same group who had read the Small Catechism since they were confirmed and only a couple of hands went up. A few years later I repeated the question but inserted the then popular The Purpose Driven Life with pretty much the same results.
It is true, as Luther said, we should receive when we are "impelled by hunger and thirst therefor"; but this hunger and thirst will come as we receive, and the more we receive, the more we will hunger and thirst. If we urge our people to read the Bible daily, if we insist that they attend church every Sunday, why then should we not insist that they come to Holy Communion? [von Schenk]
"Negligence of the Sacrament I call treating the Lord's Supper with contempt. If you wish such liberty, then take even a little more and cease to be a Christian, then you need not believe or pray-for one is as much Christ's commandment as the other!" Negligence is not only staying home when the Sacrament is offered, it is also ignoring the means of grace and building personal piety and devotional life upon another foundation. As biting as Luther's words are, we need to hear them....
23 comments:
To look at the participation of our
parish members at the Eucharist is
like using a spiritual thermometer
to determine their spiritual health.
No healthy Christian will avoid this
Sacrament. As pastors we need to
encourage weekly participation for
the sake of their spiritual health.
Our sermons need to emphasize the
means of grace as the power to live
the Christian lifestyle.
What is taught or not taught at the Seminary tells the tale to a large extent. We have departed from Luther's view of the Sacrament to our own peril.
Attention Paul:
How you can blame the Seminary ?
Lets be honest, pastoral leadership is the key to encouraging weekly
Eucharist participation. You can
have the best professors at the Sem
but they can not make your decisions
in the parish.
Would this relate as well to the other sacraments (Baptism and Confession/Absolution)? How many of us Lutherans disregard private confession and absolution? I know that it is discussed in the catechism and traditional literature, but how often is it actually done? The impression that I get is that it is (sadly) viewed as a matter of personal preference, and that corporate (large scale, anonymous) confession/absolution is adequate. When we begin acting as if one sacrament is no big deal, how long until the others follow suit, kwim?
"What is taught or not taught at the Seminary tells the tale to a large extent. We have departed from Luther's view of the Sacrament to our own peril."
have you not also departed from the Church Father's views on the Sacrament in part because of the departure from the importance of the Church, Magisterium, and Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff as well? Does this not also cause some peril?
And then there is the other side of sad failure (abomination):
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHY4K6Tr_EA
Christians, if you see this, RUN. Go to your parish and insist on the weekly real, true, Sacrament that does what Christ promised.
have you not also departed from the Church Father's views on the Sacrament in part because of the departure from the importance of the Church, Magisterium, and Supremacy of the Roman Pontiff as well? Does this not also cause some peril?
Oh please. The fact that the Roman "Easter Duty" is still on the books speaks volumes about the difference in Eucharistic piety in the Roman Catholic church and Lutheran practice. Technically speaking Catholics are required to receive Communion and confession once a year during the Easter season but required to "assist" at the "holy sacrifice of the mass" every week, whether they receive Communion or not. Also the reason that a priest can still say mass privately without a congregation although thankfully that's not done much anymore.
The New Testament clearly says "As often as you do this", no rule or command is laid down by the Lord. That does not mean Christians should be excused from frequent, even weekly Communion but there is no legalism involved here.
As for the Fathers of the church, they often contradict and disagree with each other.
When Catholics recover the proper understanding and importance of the primacy and efficacy of the Word to do what it says then maybe they will be in a position to correct Lutheran practice.
Christine
Christine,
Thank you for your critique. I do believe that you may be misguided and I encourage you to pick up a Catechism and read it. The "Easter Duty" is no more a "duty" or legality than you or Luther claiming that one should behave in some way towards the Eucharist. Indeed, the "duty" you speak of is a general duty that would be observed far more often than yearly if one were to be truly Catholic.
Whether the Fathers "contradict" each other, certainly some disagreed at times with the others in some areas but ALL of them were Catholic.
Christine,
also a question for you, maybe you can help me understand, how do you receive the Word? Where is it/how is it that you know what the Word is?
In Christ
Indeed, the "duty" you speak of is a general duty that would be observed far more often than yearly if one were to be truly Catholic.
Doesn't change the fact that it is still on the books. By the way, I was raised by a Lutheran mother and Catholic father and spent over ten years as a Roman Catholic before realizing that to be truly catholic I needed to return to my Confessional Lutheran roots.
The pastor of my former RC parish routinely wrote about the "Easter Duty" in the bulletin every year. When my Catholic father, who was raised under what is now called the "Extraordinary Form" of the mass, was growing up the lament was that everybody went to mass but not Communion, now everyone goes to mass and not confession which has fallen badly out of use. There literally were times when Catholics only received once a year.
I would also submit that the term "duty" is somewhat different in Roman usage than the way you are stating it.
As to the Fathers, some were edifying, some not so much, the fact that they were all "Catholic" is less than impressive. The Catholic church is a very wide tent and tolerates many things as long as one maintains "unity" with the bishop of Rome.
As for the Word, I am referring to the Eternal Word who is Jesus the Christ, to whom the Word of God testifies and that Word is intimately linked with Jesus the Word. The Word always does what is says, joined to water in Holy Baptism and in the sacramental union of bread/wine and Body/Blood.
The purity of "apostolic succession" is a Roman fantasy.
Christine
Christine,
I dont particularly sense that you are really interested in an open discussion or in considering the true Catholic position on these issues. Luther himself said:
"Now, it is true, as we have said, that no one should by any means be coerced or compelled, lest we institute a new murdering of souls. Nevertheless, it must be known that such people as deprive themselves of, and withdraw from, the Sacrament so long a time are not to be considered Christians. For Christ has not instituted it to be treated as a show, but has commanded His Christians to eat and drink it, and thereby remember Him."
He is saying that Christ commands us to take the Eucharist and in a more latent way creating a "law" saying that those that do not do so are "not Christians" a much harsher law than that of the Church.
Secondly, how do you define the Word, what does it contain? Why not the Book of Mormon the Word? is it an oral Tradition only?
Why is Luther "edifying" and correct vice the Fathers? Why is he not your "Pope" without a title?
In Christ
I dont particularly sense that you are really interested in an open discussion or in considering the true Catholic position on these issues. Luther himself said:
Luther was speaking of the fact that now that the people were no longer "compelled" under the "tyranny of the pope" to receive the Sacrament they were staying away. Not surprising considering how poorly catechized at the time.
Let it suffice to say that having had hands-on experience as a Roman Catholic I really don't need to be "clarified" as to what the positions of the RC are and like most Catholics you confuse the Lutheran position on the Scriptures as not being informed by any tradition, properly speaking, as to what the Word is and is not. Confessional Lutherans are defined by the Book of Concord which upholds the ancient creeds because we have always been a part of the Church catholic and the writings in the BOC are a correct exposition of what the Christian faith is.
Mormons are not Christians. Plain and simple.
Nor do Lutherans need a "pope", as Luther himself said the teaching is not his nor has he been crucified for anyone, it is the Word of God as recorded in the Holy Scriptures that we follow.
And yes, we do take the writings of the Fathers into consideration where they do not contradict Scripture.
Christine
But again you define your faith by the Book of Concord. From where does the Book of Concord derive it's authority?
In Christ
I'll let the BOC speak for itself:
The Book of Concord contains documents which Christians from the fourth to the 16th century A.D. explained what they believed and taught on the basis of the Holy Scriptures. It includes, first, the three creeds which originated in the ancient church, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. It contains, secondly, the Reformation writings known as the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Luther's Small and Large Catechisms, and the Formula of Concord.
Hey, want to have some fun? Ask the average Catholic what the Athanasian Creed is and be prepared for some blank looks.
Christine
Listen, i'm not trying to be smart or witty, but you are defining things based upon a book put together by whom? what authority does the BOC have? was it written by Christ himself? was it a manmade product? can it really define the scriptures?
was it a manmade product? can it really define the scriptures?
Oh that is really a hoot, the BOC incorporates the same ancient ecumenical creeds that the CCC of the Catholic church uses, is that a man made product?
Were the Sacred Scriptures truly inspired by the Holy Spirit?
When all those clerical offices were being bought and sold in the Middle Ages, how can you be sure that your priest is truly "authorized" to confect the Eucharist?
Christine,
I'm not sure you are willing to take a moment from your RCC bashing to think critically, but my question wasn't about the RCC, it was about the BOC's authority, what answer do you have for that?
I have myself been in your position and had to ponder these questions. I had a lot of issues with the RCC, but in the search for Truth the truth that is Christ, that is the Word you speak of and the work of the Holy Spirit allowed me to overcome my prejudice, in the truest since of the work, against the RCC.
No one claimed that the Church did not have sinners in it. What makes Luther or his doctrines more valuable than those of any other individual? Could I not also devalue your whole argument by pointing out his failings?
Unlike man, the Church, and her instruments, to include the Pope are led by the Holy Spirit as promised by Christ himself.
In Christ
When all those clerical offices were being bought and sold in the Middle Ages, how can you be sure that your priest is truly "authorized" to confect the Eucharist?
Priestly authority comes not from man but from Christ through His Church, through the Apostolic gifts He gave and the Apostles conferred. The priest action is in the person of Christ, it is not a man who "confects" the Eucharist.
Do you truly strive to revere and treat the Eucharist as if it were God himself?
When all those clerical offices were being bought and sold in the Middle Ages, how can you be sure that your priest is truly "authorized" to confect the Eucharist?
Ah, but we Lutherans don't confuse the Holy Ministry with that of the Roman priesthood. Aside from Christ himself, can you please show me where the Greek "sacerdos" or Latin "hiereus" are used of any pastor in the New Testament? No, no, presbuteros won't do, it means basically "elder" (hence, the "Presbyterian" Church).
Nor is the Eucharist we celebrate a "re-presentation" of the sacrifice of the mass as Rome understands it, the once for all sacrifice that need not be repeated. The sacramental gifts in Holy Communion are just that, the gifts of Christ's Testament bequeathed to his church that offer forgiveness of sins, and where there is forgiveness of sins there is salvation.
That there are faithful and true Christians in the Catholic church is not in doubt, but the RC as an institution/system is still riddled with error.
Ask someone in the ancient Church of Armenia about the pope :)
No one claimed that the Church did not have sinners in it.
Neither did I.
Greek "sacerdos" or Latin "hiereus"
Ooops, got my Latin/Greek reversed, should of course be Greek "hiereus" and Latin "sacerdos".
Christine,
I am no Scripture scholar. I do not know if you are one, but I suspect, based on the fact that I have heard this argument before, that it may be one you are regurgitating from something you have heard about why the RCC is not the Church. If I am wrong, please forgive and correct me. However, this is beside the point. I dont have time to go back and forth with you on this and it's not really the point so I'll ask my question bluntly and pray that you think, pray, and study on it yourself.
How do you know what is and is not Scripture? How do you know what Doctrines (ie the Trinity) are true and neccesary to be a Christian and what authority do you derive these conclusions from?
I wish you all the best and hope that God blesses you abundantly. It is quite clear that you do have a great love for Him and that, my sister in Christ, is a true blessing.
God Bless and Good Night,
In Christ,
Cary
I see "redsoxfan" embedded in the name, and taking it at face value, I am loathe to speak contra anyone with the True Faith of the mind of God at sport, otherwise known as baseball.
That said -- being winsome as all hell as everyone knows, just ask PW -- if one wants to cut short discussion on how one knows the "authority" of this or that, all of them being leading questions with the a priori being if you think about it you'll be RC, re Lutheran teaching one may find those answers, the "Lutheran" faith being not Luther's at all as he himself said but the catholic faith, as in before the Roman Empire redefined "catholic", in the Book of Concord itself.
And I apologise for some thirty years on still writing as my dissertation adviser complained about, like something literally translated from German. More winsomeness.
Post a Comment