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 pains to say that this moment of the sacramental union cannot be pinpointed to a precise instant but on the other hand at some point we know that Christ is where He has promised to be.  On the one hand, this hesitance is rooted in our refusal to see the power to effect Christ's presence as something deposited in the priest in ordination.  On the other hand, this is shaped by our insistence that it remains Christ's Supper and He is the One who fulfills its promise and makes present His flesh and blood in bread and wine.  But the soft underbelly of Lutheranism is the refusal to take a firm stand and thus allow the muddle to allow such ridiculous opinions as receptionism (the idea that the presence of Christ in the Sacrament happens only at the moment the elements are consumed).  Worse, the refusal to speak forthrightly on this has also allowed us the shame of how the elements are treated after the supper (from disrespect to downright impiety).  Finally, our hesitance to say what we ought and ought not to do, has left some to invent practices clearly at odds with our Confessions (online Sacraments).

If you want the definitive work on the subject, survey Dr. Edward F. Peters ThD dissertation, The Origin and Meaning of the Axiom: "Nothing Has the Character of a Sacrament outside of the Use" in Sixteenth- Century and Seventeenth Century Lutheran Theology.  You might also want to survey Dr. Bjarne Teigen's The Lord's Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz.  Another resource might be Dr. Arthur Carl Piepkorn's The Moment at Which the Sacramental Union Begins.  

The whole point of the usus (the ancient rule or standard, “Nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum” or’ “extra actionem divinitus institutum, in English: Nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ” or “apart from the action divinely instituted”) (F.C., S.D., VII,85; Trig.p. 1001; Tappert, p. 584) is not the moment at which the sacramental union begins or ends but the protection of the Sacrament as gift and blessing meant to be received, that is, to be eaten and drunk.  The distortion of the usus to deal with other questions has not helped the matter of clarity or consistency in confession and practice.  The context of this was and is against those uses of the Sacrament except for the faithful reception as Christ intends (here, Lutherans would insist that exposition of the Sacrament or benediction -- outside its reception -- is not the use for which Christ intended the Supper).  It stands to reason if our Lord has given the command to eat and drink of His body and blood and there is no eating and drinking, then the blessing attached to that communion is lost to us and there is no Sacrament.

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.

While it is certainly true that the Lutheran Confessions do not separate the consecration from distribution from the reception, this does not mean that this precludes us from addressing what happens at each juncture of the one, complete act.  The consecration is one action.  The Words of Christ are addressed to elements not as magical words or incantation but as Words of Promise that are efficacious and deliver what they promise.  The pastor speaks as the voice of Christ speaking and doing what He has promised.  It is not some peculiar power given to the pastor that is at work here but the Word of Christ doing what Christ has promised to do.  Thus, there is involved in the consecration the intent to receive what the Words of Christ promise.  We can have confidence here that what those Words say, the Words do, so that what is distributed and received is the body and blood of Christ, quite apart from our faith or lack thereof or our convictions about the Real Presence or lack thereof.  

The sanctus bells ring not to draw attention to the clock and the time in which this presence occurs but to the Word that speaks and to what that Word effects.  In the same way, the elevation is the natural ceremonial confession of what we believe, teach, and confess about the Words of Christ.  We adore Christ here, acknowledging His presence where He has promised to be.  Because Christ is to be adored, faith rejoices to do so.  We are not distinguishing the bread from the body or the wine from the blood because this sacramental union compels us to see them together.  Not bread that is less than bread but bread that is more -- the body of Christ.  In the same way the wine -- not less than wine but more, the blood of Christ.  We are not worshiping an object any more than one worships an object when one bows before the Incarnate Lord Jesus.  It is simply foolishness to make such a charge.

Distribution is handled in a manner appropriate to what is being distributed.  This is the most sacred gift of God, the flesh of His Son for us to eat and His blood for us to drink.  The use of the houseling cloth or distribution paten or simply holding the purificator under the chin reminds us that this is not just bread and not just wine.  While there is some antiquity to distributing in the hand, it is neither universal or necessarily laudable to do so.  The pastor distributes into the mouth out of reverence for what is being distributed.  The distribution remains until all that is consecrated is consumed, whether later the sick or against the next communion.  Why is this so hard?  The Lord calls on us to eat and drink with the promise that what we eat and drink are His flesh for the life of the world and His blood that cleanses us from all sin.  The Lord does not give time limits to such distribution.

After the Supper, what remains cannot be treated apart from its use.  Luther and others have warned against treating the consecrated host as mere host and mingling with the unconsecrated and also what remains in the flagon or cruet.  Though most Lutherans would look askance at reservation of the reliquae, the truth is most Lutherans reserve without tabernacle.  In the sacristy, a plastic container and separate cruet are marked consecrated to keep them separate.  Why not give what remains its due and honor the Lord with a fitting place of reservation for later distribution or commune all that remains?  By the way, consume it at the altar so that the people see and understand it.  Better this than to do it after the service in the sacristy, behind closed doors.  Sure, over the years there have been practices less than salutary (like sending the Eucharist like a welcome coffee cake to a new bishop).  But that these excesses have occurred does not mean we must deny the obvious.  Take and eat; take and drink.  And what we take and eat and take and drink is what Christ says it is until we eat and drink it.  Unless we do not intend to eat and drink it at all, for then it is not His sacrament but something else.

Perhaps there are Lutherans who believe in two miracles, Christ filling the bread with His body and the wine with His blood AND then Christ departing leaving only bread and wine.  Perhaps there are Lutherans who like such fancifulness but not this one.

Frankly, when did you ever find a Lutheran who wanted to omit the reception?  When did you ever find a Lutheran who thought that being a spectator at the mass was as beneficial as eating and drinking as Christ invites and commands?  When did you ever find a Lutheran who wanted to take the host and mount it for adoration in place of the reception?  When did you ever find a Lutheran who wanted to intentionally violate the usus by taking bits and pieces away from the whole action?  You don't!  You won't!  But I tell what you might find.  You might find Lutherans who toss away leftover reliquae like yesterday's garbage, who treat the elements on the altar and after the Supper with little respect, who ignore spills and leave a trail of crumbs as if it did not matter a bit, and who tinker with the Lord's institution as if it were a suggestion instead of a testament (substituting juice and other breads as they see fit).  The problem with the usus is not Lutherans reserving for some use apart from reception.  The problem is that receptionism and a narrow view of the usus has led us to forget what it is that the pastor holds in his hand and gives to us in Christ's name and treat it as if it were something ordinary, common, and sentimental more than real.

Finally, make sure that the vessels used for distribution are cleansed with clean water, the water reverently poured into the piscina or on the ground, and those vehicles of grace treated in accord with what they carried.  This means careful rinsing and pouring down the piscina the rinsed water even from individual cups (whether glass or plastic).  To do anything less is to admit that these vessels conveyed nothing more than earthly elements and to deny our confession.  Honor the usus.  But do not dishonor the Lord by putting an expiration date where He has put none or by presuming some sort of sophistry designed to minimize our responsibility for reverence instead of encouraging it.