Obviously, this is something that is very much a part of Roman Catholic theology and piety. It was certainly a vivid expression of the piety of the laity in the medieval times when actual reception was not as frequent as it is today and when adoration of the host outside of the Mass as well as within the Mass was a credible substitute to the sacramental participating by receiving the Sacrament.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, spiritual communion is “an ardent desire to receive Jesus in the most holy sacrament and lovingly embrace him” when the individual circumstance or the condition of the times make it impossible to receive sacramental Communion. The Catechism of the Council of Trent spent a considerable amount of its attention and included a special section on spiritual communion in the late 16th century. Whereas the past may have focused more upon individual conditions to require spiritual instead of sacramental communion, the corona virus has created a more universal situation for it. This ocular communion has been renewed in a time when most Roman Catholic dioceses have prevented the reception of the Sacrament in the churches.
Individual circumstances range from Roman Catholics whose marital status is not recognized as well as family conditions and illness may preclude it. They are often reminded that they are not prohibited from receiving this spiritual Communion and enjoying the grace of the sacrament during a time when physical reception is not possible.
Spiritual communion is then a disposition of the heart and accords with the Roman Catholic practice of eucharistic adoration in which time is spent before the Host in meditation and prayer without actually receiving it by mouth. In medieval times, the laity not only regarded the devout adoration of the consecrated Host during Mass as a substitute for sacramental reception, it was often the only communion they received. This may seem odd in a day when the frequency of reception by mouth is high and even stranger how this "spiritual communion" might replace sacramental reception. The medieval devotion to the Host was thought to be the equivalent of tasting and consuming it.
In speaking of excommunication, being deprived of the reception of the Sacrament, Luther does speak of two kinds of communion. One is inner and spiritual and has to do with the participation of the faithful in one faith, one hope, and one love and the second is external and is the participation in the Sacrament. Only God can give entrance to the spiritual communion but the person may choose to depart from it. This is mainly a comfort to those unable to participate in the Sacrament and not a real case for spiritual communion. Lutheran theology affirms that the Word is a efficacious gift from God that comes to God's people through public reading of Scripture and proclamation of the gospel. Yet as important as the efficacy and sufficiency of the Word are to the Church and to the life of the Christian, Luther does not extend support to the idea of a spiritual communion apart from the physical act of receiving Christ's flesh and blood. Rather, Luther would argue that instead of such virtual communions, the Word is efficacious and sufficient in times when such physical reception is precluded because of individual circumstance or a common burden upon many. For Luther, the spiritual communion is not necessary in times when actual communion upon Christ's body and blood are not possible for the Word is both efficacious AND sufficient for Christ works through His Word.
Lutherans should not spend their time wondering about spiritual communions either and should avail themselves of the gift of the Word and the Spirit working in that Word. Lutherans may have a good and healthy argument for whether or not emergency conditions actually preclude the offering of the Sacrament to be eaten and drunk but they would better to avoid the idea of a spiritual communion which conveys some or most of the same blessings without eating and drinking (with faith to receive them). While one may and should pray in hunger for that day when Christ's body and blood may be received, in times when the Sacrament is not accessible our hope and comfort should not be directed to a virtual substitute but to the Word of God.
6 comments:
Just another reminder that Protestant and Catholic theology is often similar, if not one in the same. For the Calvinist Communion is with Christ, as the spirit is lifted up to heaven, to Commune with Christ. I see no real difference in what you have described of spiritual communion with the Roman tradition.
I am so very thankful that our pastors have extended themselves greatly to make Holy Communion available to as many of our parish as possible. Should it ever come to the point of not having Holy Communion available or possible, the Word, remembering Baptism, and looking forward to either resuming Holy Communion here on earth, or communing in the full sense of the Feast to Come is where heart and mind should rest.
Let us not forget what we confess as Lutherans:
There is, therefore, a two-fold eating of the flesh of Christ, one spiritual, of which Christ treats especially John 6:54, which occurs in no other way than with the Spirit and faith, in the preaching and meditation of the Gospel, as well as in the Lord's Supper, and by itself is useful and salutary, and necessary at all times for salvation to all Christians; without which spiritual participation also the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not salutary, but even injurious and damning [a cause of condemnation].
62] But this spiritual eating is nothing else than faith, namely, to hear God's Word (wherein Christ, true God and man, is presented to us, together with all benefits which He has purchased for us by His flesh given into death for us, and by His blood shed for us, namely, God's grace, the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life), to receive it with faith and appropriate it to ourselves, and in all troubles and temptations firmly to rely, with sure confidence and trust, and to abide in the consolation that we have a gracious God, and eternal salvation on account of the Lord Jesus Christ. [He who hears these things related from the Word of God, and in faith receives and applies; them to himself, and relies entirely upon this consolation (that we have God reconciled and life eternal on account of the Mediator, Jesus Christ),-he, I say, who with true confidence rests in the Word of the Gospel in all troubles and temptations, spiritually eats the body of Christ and drinks His blood.]
Yet such spiritual communion as affirmed in the texts above does not support the idea of a regular spiritual communion to replace the sacramental eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood. I am not at all certain that what Pastor McCain is referencing and what is Rome's practice of regular and ordinary spiritual communion, even when present at the Mass, is the same thing. I do not think the good Pastor here is ignoring what Lutherans confess but making a clear and necessary distinction between that and the spiritual communion practiced by Rome.
Bravo, Pastor McCain!
Lutheran Lurker, the confusion arises because this is a turgid article that flips between Roman Catholic and Lutheran uses of the terms spiritual communion and spiritual eating, interprets Luther’s use of the terms according to Roman Catholicism, and overall interprets the Sacrament through the lens of Berthold von Schenk and the liturgical movement, not the clear Lutheran Confessions. Read “The Presence,” and this blog will make more sense. Pastor Peters also is seemingly unaware that spiritual eating and spiritual communion are defined by Luther and Lutherans as FAITH.
“Luther does speak of two kinds of communion. One is inner and spiritual and has to do with the participation of the faithful in one faith, one hope, and one love...”
Book of Concord: “But this spiritual eating is nothing else than faith”
“Luther does not extend support to the idea of a spiritual communion apart from the physical act of receiving Christ's flesh and blood.”
Book of Concord: “which occurs in no other way than with the Spirit and faith, in the preaching and meditation of the Gospel, as well as in the Lord's Supper, and by itself is useful and salutary, and necessary at all times for salvation to all Christians; without which spiritual participation also the sacramental or oral eating in the Supper is not only not salutary, but even injurious and damning [a cause of condemnation].”
“Lutherans should not spend their time wondering about spiritual communions either”
Book of Concord: “But this spiritual eating is nothing else than faith, namely, to hear God's Word (wherein Christ, true God and man, is presented to us, together with all benefits which He has purchased for us by His flesh given into death for us, and by His blood shed for us, namely, God's grace, the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, and eternal life), to receive it with faith and appropriate it to ourselves, and in all troubles and temptations firmly to rely, with sure confidence and trust, and to abide in the consolation that we have a gracious God, and eternal salvation on account of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
As a gratuitous side note, “Host” is English for the Latin “hostias,” which means “sacrifices.” Not the sense in which the Lutheran Confessions speak of the Eucharist.
Pastor McCain is citing the Lutheran Confessions which in turn support the point Pr. Peters is making when he rejects the Romanist "spiritual communion" nonsense. You missed the point.
The spiritual communion described by Catholics is nothing more than a virtual communion and is no communion at all. Look around at the suggestions for opening churches and Catholics are offering one option of the priest and deacon communing while the people have "spiritual communion." Lutherans can quibble about the use of the term but can't follow Rome's lead. The spiritual communion Luther speaks about is nothing other than faith and does not exist apart from the Word and the Sacraments. Lutherans and Catholics are not at all talking about the same thing. Isn't that what this is really about?
Post a Comment