is means is
Pastor Dan Berg at Our Savior Lutheran Church in Hendersonville, Mo, frequently posts reels on their church's Facebook page. The last half dozen or so have revolved around elements of the Divine Service (and you can find the rest on youtube). This is really good stuff, and easily shareable. One of them talks about communion. Pastor Berg clearly declares the very Lutheran doctrine that when the Lord's words are spoken over the cup, the cup then contains the blood of Christ.
"So I watched the video several times and I am a little uncomfortable with how he describes what is going on in communion. He states that “when the words of institution are spoken this cup now contains the blood of Christ”. While you can understand that correctly to me that sounds like transubstantiation, the teaching of Catholicism that says the wine is changed into his blood as it sits on the altar. To say after speaking the words of institution the wine in the chalice is now his blood is saying more than Scripture says. If I spill the wine after saying the words of institution does that mean have spilled wine or his blood. I was always taught I have spilled wine. Or if there is wine left over in the sacred chalice it is wine that is either poured down the drain or reused or the sacred blood of Christ. While you run into the danger of saying more than Scripture says when you try to determine when it is no longer just wine but is his blood, most Lutheran theologians have said that it is in the eating and drinking when you receive it as body and blood. That is why we simply use the phrase we receive his body and blood in with and under the bread and wine rather then try to pinpoint a time when his body and blood is there. So while I applaud teaching a new word I would also be careful stressing “the sacred chalice”. That would seem to imply as well the idea that there is something special about the chalice we use in communion. There is not. It does not matter what vessel we use as we partake of the Lords supper. For example as I visit shut ins I do not need to take the sacred chalice but give them communion using a plastic container and plastic cups. Should we have reverence for the Lord’s supper - certainly. But not if that reverence can lead to confusion."
Emphasis mine, to identify points of discussion.
First,
"To say after speaking the words of institution the wine in the chalice is now his blood is saying more than Scripture says."
This can be quite simply dispatched by examining the words of institution: THIS IS MY BODY. THIS IS MY BLOOD. Christ does not lie. He doesn't say it will be his body, He doesn't say anything about crossing the plane of the teeth. How can Paul call it a cup of blessing unless it really contains the Blood of our Lord? The simplest Biblical case to make is that when Jesus talks He tells the truth. Rather, it takes mental gymnastics to say "it is, but not yet." Like Luther at Marburg, we insist "is means is."
"I was always taught I have spilled wine. Or if there is wine left over in the sacred chalice it is wine that is either poured down the drain or reused"Now, right or wrong, he impugns the seminary! But this is certainly not a historic Lutheran thought or practice. Rev. David Jay Webber has catalogued a number of quotes revolving around Luther's treatment of the cup and spills, distilled from Edward Peter's doctoral dissertation, 'The origin and meaning of the axiom: "Nothing has the character of a Sacrament Outside of the Use",' (which I was in the process of reading when I started this blog, hence the domain).
Indeed, the idea that the consecrated cup holds the very blood of Christ is seemingly ensconced in the Book of Concord. In the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, Article VII, paragraph 87, which includes a reference to the Second Letter to Simon Wolfernius). This has been referred to as the "Lost Luther Reference" and its history is cataloged paper by Bjarne Teigen. In short, the Tappert edition of the Book of Concord provided the wrong reference. For the reader, here is the entire content of the Second Letter to Simon Wolfernius from the pen of Martin Luther:
"Grace and peace, Indeed, why should I not have been
disturbed and saddened, my dear Simon Wolferinus, when 1
saw you two, living together in one town and the ministers of
one church, agreeing completely in doctrine, but carrying
on between yourselves with such a bitter spirit, because of a
matter which you have neither examined closely enough, and
which is not that important if it were examined more closely?
Look at these propositions of yours, and see whether or not
such a terrible outcry is in keeping with charity and brotherly
love. I see that Satan is tempting you, by making a beam out
of a splinter, or rather a fire out of a spark. You could have
solved this by a meeting between the two of you, since it is not
a matter of being against the madness of the papists, but
against a colleague of yours in the ministry and in religion.
Indeed Dr. Philip wrote rightly that there is no sacrament
outside of the sacramental action; but you are defining the
sacramental action much too hastily and abruptly. If you do
it
in this way, you will appear to have absolutely no
sacrament. For if such a quick breaking off of the action
really exists, it will follow that after the speaking of the
Words [of institution], which is the most powerful and
principle action in the sacrament, no one would receive the
body and blood of Christ, because the action would have
ceased. Certainly Dr. Philip does not want that. But such a
definition of the action wouM bring about infinite scruples of
conscience and endless questions, such as are disputed
among the papists, as, for example, whether the body and
blood of Christ are present at the first, middle, or last
syllable. Therefore, one must look not only upon this movement of instant or present action but also on the time. Not in
terms of mathematical but of physical breadth, that is, one
must give this action a certain period of time, in a period of
appropriate breadth of time, as they say, "in breadth.",
Therefore, we shall define the time or the sacramental
action in this way: that it starts with the beginning of the Our Father and lasts until all have communicated, have emptied the chalice, have consumed the Hosts, until the people have been dismissed and [the priest] has left the altar. In this way
we shall be safe and free from the scruples and scandals of
such endless questions. Dr. Philip defines the sacramental
action in relation to what is outside it, that is, against reservation of and processions with the sacrament. He does not
split it up within [the action] itself, nor does he define it in a
way that it contradicts itself. Therefore see to it that if anything is left over of the sacrament, either some communicants or the priest himself and his assistant receive it, so
that it is not only a curate or someone else who drinks what is
left over in the chalice, but that he gives it to the others who
were also participants in the body [of Christ], so that you do
not appear to divide the sacrament by a bad example or to
treat the sacramental action irreverently. This is my opinion
and I know that it is also Philip's opinion too.' "
Emphasis mine. Luther clearly points to the words of institution as the only effective means, acting as they are spoken, and that the sacramental action continues until all the reliquae are consumed.
Teigen assesses the damage
"If
we, in conclusion, assess the theological damage done
because of the lost Luther reference, it is evident that by the omission of the Luther reference in SD VII, 87, in the Tappert edition,
Luther's doctrine of the consecration has been seriously maimed.
And then by supplying in the footnote to this passage totally misleading information as to Luther's doctrine with regard to a consecration done in accord with Christ's command, the Tappert edition has given this section of the Formula a definite Melanchthonian twist. This may not be so serious for those Lutherans who
today look upon the Book of Concord merely as an historically
conditioned response to problems that confronted the Lutherans
four hundreds years ago. But it should be of great concern to
those who today make a quia subscription to the Book of Concord. They should be moved to make a fresh but careful, independent, objective study of the doctrine of the Book of
Concord.'"
"That would seem to imply as well the idea that there is something special about the chalice we use in communion. There is not. It does not matter what vessel we use as we partake of the Lords supper."
Certainly, there is nothing about the rite other than Christ's words that have any power behind them. Christ is certainly present both in the chalice and the jiggers, the way you do things communicates what you believe. An usher could wear a suit and tie, or he could be in a tee shirt and crocs - both men perform the same function but display very different attitudes. A Pastor could scuttle up the aisle past the altar to open the service, or he can take the time to comport himself and bow before approaching the altar - same function, different attitudes. Our American culture has made all things casual, and we've absorbed this into our worship, and this is to our detriment.
Comments
Post a Comment