Herman Sasse noted that confessional Lutherans like the Missouri Synod have a history of needing the doctrine of the Sacrament more than the Sacrament itself. That is, Missouri has a long practice of spending more time on the pure and orthodox confession of what the Sacrament is without having that turn into a hunger and yearning to actually celebrate that Eucharist more often or receive it more regularly. Considering that the evolution from a quarterly to at least twice monthly or even perhaps weekly is an accomplishment of the past couple of generations, it is easy to understand Sasse's comment. But we are not called to a theoretical Sacrament but to a real reception. The Sacrament of Christ's flesh and blood was not given for us to debate (except when we must to preserve its use) but for us to eat and drink, receiving its food as gift and blessing, in faith.
On this night, it cannot be enough to confess what the Sacrament is or is not rightly. It must also translate into a love for and a consuming passion for that Sacrament to be received as well. Close(d) communion unfortunately spends too much time in trying to discern why some should not commune instead of affirming why those who may commune should commune. As I have often opined on this blog, a worthy communicant is not one with a membership card in the wallet or the appropriate family pedigree but one who has faith in the words given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. “For the worthy reception, faith is necessary, by which one firmly believes Christ’s promise of remission of sins and eternal life, as the words in the sacrament clearly state.” (LW 34:355)
While it is true that Luther's words are moved more by concern for those “of timid conscience, who prepare themselves for the sacrament with much worry and woe and yet have no peace and do not know how they stand with God.” (LW 32:54-55) To those who come with the good conscience of confession, Luther gives these words of comfort: “Faith alone must always be the proper cleansing and worthy preparation.” (Ibid) Could it be that in our concern for the unity of those at the rail, we have failed to encourage frequent and faithful reception with faith that trusts the Words of Christ and, having confessed sin, is relieved from the torment of the soul by the Holy Absolution of our Lord? No one should wait until their faith is strong enough to receive Christ's body and blood in this Sacrament. It is precisely this weakness that bids the hungry and thirsty to come and be refreshed, strengthened, and encouraged.
We talk a great deal about the Sacrament but the talking should not replace or substitute for the eating and drinking in faith, trusting the Word of Christ and delighting in the gift and blessing such communion gives. All our talk ought to encourage a more reverent and frequent reception of of our Lord's body and blood within this Eucharistis feast. If it doesn't something is not quite right.
Allow me a personal moment. I personally dislike greatly the practice of many of repeating the Words of Institution into brief phrases, a few words for each communicant that, if successful, will spread the whole sentence over however many there are at the rail to receive. It means that sometimes the only word the pastor speaks and the communicant hears is Take or eat or this is, etc... EVERY communicant needs to hear these words for you. That is the faith that brings the communicant to the rail and that is the phrase that sends them back to the pew rejoicing. We celebrate not simply that this bread is Christ's body but that it is Christ's body given and shed for you. So pardon this advice and stop trying to play a game with the words and simply say so that every communicant hears: The body of Christ for you. The blood of Christ for you. If faith is the key to receiving this Sacrament worthily, then the words for you are the springboard of joy for something objective to be given and receiving personally.
And on this night, do not preach a doctrinal sermon which forgets that the whole point of the Sacrament is not to understand the mystery but to meet the gift of Christ with faith. It is not doctrine in the abstract which concerns us today but the personal gift Christ commands to be given for me. The goal of close(d) communion is not to restrict anyone from the Table of the Lord but to ensure that all who do commune rejoice to receive and believe that this is Christ's flesh for you and this is Christ's blood for you.
Now we must also consider who the person is who receives such power and benefit [from the Lord’s Supper]… It is the one who believes what the words say and what they give, for they are not spoken or preached to stone and wood but to those who hear them, to those whom he says, “Take and eat”…All those who let these words be addressed to them and believe that they are true have what the words declare… Now this is the sum total of a Christian’s preparation to receive this sacrament worthily. (The Large Catechism, The Sacrament of the Altar, section 33-36)
4 comments:
I don’t think the LCMS tradition of repeating the words of institution in phrases during the distribution is fairly characterized as “word games.” The communicants hear the “for you” spoken clearly during the Verba. Repeating these words in phrases during distribution serves as a catechetical aid to focus on the words and promise of Christ’s institution. Let’s not pretend that communicants at the railing are not within earshot of the other kneeling communicants and can’t hear the entire repetition. As Luther said, “It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.”
So, for a Lutheran, the chief words, if you will, are “given and shed for you, for the forgiveness of sins.” In many other Christian traditions, each communicant is simply told “the body of Christ” and “the blood of Christ,” as you suggest as an improvement, during the distribution. Fine, but is it the true body and blood of Christ? Is it to be adored? Will I be judged for being sinful? Is it to call to mind Christ in heaven and direct my spiritual communion there? Is its effectiveness tied to first receiving the Sacrament of Penance which forgives my sins in conjunction with penitential works I perform? Or is the Sacrament the very body and blood of Christ given unto death for the forgiveness of my sins through faith alone?
“Now may this true body and blood strengthen and preserve you in the true faith, unto life everlasting. Depart in peace, Amen.”
Is it to be adored within the context of the Divine Service. That every Lutheran ought to admit and confess. While I was admitting a pet peeve, you seem to have taken it a step further. It is a word game to parse out the Verba bit by bit over each communicant. How else would you describe it? It is certainly not the formula suggested by the rubrics. What every communicant wants and should hear is "The body/blood of Christ FOR YOU."
Then you should write the Synod to have the doctrinal approval revoked for the 1943 Small Catechism, which states, “Q: Are the elements to be adored? A: No…”. What we do confess is that “Christ Himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper, should be adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the same, as also in all other places,” which is not the same thing as “the Sacrament should be adored within the context of the Divine Service.” Sacramental adoration was a practice for getting grace even outside the communion rite that Lutherans emphatically rejected. It stems from the idea of transubstantiation, which along with consubstantiation Lutherans also rejected. Similar to Chemnitz’s rejection of the elevation due to its association with the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, Lutherans did not retain the medieval traditions of priests genuflecting before, or laity raising hands, beating one’s breast, or crossing oneself before the Sacrament. What we chose to retain was kneeling for communion.
We all have our pet peeves and that’s fine. I’m simply saying that the LCMS tradition, like most traditions that today’s confessionals seem to want to change, has a soundly considered theological and traditional basis behind it.
Or you might listen to this from Luther:
“We say that one should not condemn people or accuse them of heresy if they do not adore the Sacrament, for there is no command to that effect and it is not for that purpose that Christ is present. Just as we read that the apostles did not adore the Sacrament since they were sitting and eating at the table. On the other hand, one should not condemn and accuse of heresy people who do adore the Sacrament. For although Christ has not commanded it, neither has he forbidden it, but often accepted it [that is, he accepted it when people bowed to him]. Free, free it must be, according as one is disposed in his heart and has opportunity” (Luther’s Works 36, p. 295).
Post a Comment