What is the appropriate way of handling, distributing, and disposing of the consecrated elements from communion? As early as the late 1800's in North America some Lutheran congregations were beginning to use individual cups as opposed to a chalice. What is appropriate in distribution?
Because the Reformed (i.e., radical Reformation, encompassing Calvinists and Zwinglians and their heirs) tradition had made a move to grape juice as opposed to wine in communion, there was some concern over spread of infection from a single chalice. Yet there seemed to be more to this move, which may well have been related to the Calvinist view of a symbolic or spiritual presence of Christ as opposed to a real bodily presence of Christ in communion. C.H. Little, a Lutheran scholar, in 1933 published a paper identifying five reasons not to use individual cups. First, Jesus used only one cup. Second, individual cups erode the concept of one mystical body. Third, there does not seem to be reason to depart from historic Christian practice. Fourth, copying Calvinist deviations from historic Christianity indicates a willingness to follow that group in their denial of a real physical presence. Finally, alteration of the historic form may diminish the solemnity of the rite of communion. This article by Stephenson investigates these claims and explores the historic practice in communion.
It seems that the point of communion is not to make sure everyone ingests bread and wine. The ritual use appears to be important, as opposed to ease of distribution. With this said, why is it not common to have one loaf broken bit by bit and placed in the mouth of the communicants? Stephenson gives no answer except that, obviously, it is quite easy to distribute wine from one chalice but that bread must somehow be broken to be distributed.
How about the effect of consecration? Do we end up with one mystical body of Christ? That would seem to be exactly what was confessed by the earliest Lutherans. This is a very serious view of communion, viewing the elements with an importance which is not the norm within the radical Reformation. Breaking with this view seems unnecessary at best.
Is there any reason to depart from historic Christian practice? We do not depart from the earliest historic Christian belief that Christ is physically present in communion. Why then would we wish to change the practice? This is the concept on which Stephenson dwells the longest. Lutherans have historically been distinct from Calvinists. Copying the Calvinist practice therefore seems to be contradictory.
Stephenson wraps up his article with a discussion of how the communion elements have been treated historically. If in fact the bread and wine are also the body and blood of Christ, this real physical presence begs for appropriate treatment. The elements are to be consecrated prior to use. A pastor administering the Sacrament who finds that he has an insufficient amount of bread or wine should consecrate more, not simply pull it out of the container and distribute it. There is a long-standing view (Spotts remembers it being a view articulated by the third century, but doesn't remember where he learned that) that the bread which is not in the pyx and the wine which is not in the flagon is affected in consecration, but that the pyx and flagon hold unconsecrated bread and wine. Similarly, if there is extra consecrated bread and wine, it is to be used during the administration, not returned to the pyx or flagon. Elements are consecrated for use.
Lutherans view communion as a means of grace - something which has a genuine spiritual effect. If we hold that view, it makes perfect sense to treat this supernatural meal as exactly that, something supernatural.
--
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com
Dave Spotts
blogging at http://capnsaltyslongvoyage.blogspot.com and http://alex-kirk.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment