A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Protestants and Eucharistic devotion

Today is the feast of Corpus Christi, when Roman Catholics and many Anglicans celebrate and give thanks for Christ’s presence with us in the Sacrament of the Altar. The Church of the Advent, the Anglo-Catholic parish in Boston that we attended this past Sunday, is having the full-on Solemn Mass with Procession and Benediction tonight in observance of the feast. I was considering going but it looks like my schedule will prevent that from happening.

But it still raises a host (so to speak) of theological questions about the propriety of processions and other forms of Eucharistic adoration. Though believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, Lutherans have generally opposed Eucharistic adoration as tending toward idolatry. Protestants who have a more “spiritual” view of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament would seem to be on firmer ground in rejecting such practices, but why should Lutherans if they believe that the body and blood of Jesus are really present? My understanding of the Lutheran rationale for this position is that there is only a sacrament when the elements are used in the way Christ commanded. According to Wikipedia:

For Lutherans, there is no sacrament unless the elements are used according to Christ’s institution (consecration, distribution, and reception). This was first formulated in the Wittenberg Concord of 1536 in the formula: Nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum (“Nothing has the character of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ”). As a consequence of their belief in this principle, some Lutherans have opposed in the Christian Church the reservation of the consecrated elements, private masses, the practice of Corpus Christi, and the belief that the presence of Christ’s body and blood continue in the reliquæ (what remains of the consecrated elements after all have communed in the worship service). This interpretation is not universal among Lutherans. The consecrated elements are treated with respect, and in some areas are reserved as in Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Anglican practice, but Eucharistic adoration is not typically practiced. To remove any scruple of doubt or superstition the reliquæ traditionally are either consumed or poured into the earth, except that a small amount may be kept for delivery to those too ill or infirm to attend the service. In this case, the consecrated elements are to be delivered quickly, preserving the connection between the communion experienced by the ill person, and the communion of the rest of the congregation.

Is this a sound theological objection to practices of Eucharistic Adoration? At the very least, to condemn such practices as idolatrous seems difficult if one begins with affirming the Real Presence, especially if we bow and adore Christ in the elements at the Altar, as is the practice of at least some Lutherans.

5 responses to “Protestants and Eucharistic devotion”

  1. Lutheran Zephyr

    Great and thoughtful post. Thanks.

    Christ’s presence in the sacrament is not an end to be celebrated in and of itself. In your copy of Martin Luther’s small catechism you’ll read:
    What is the sacrament of the altar?
    Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.

    The sacrament of holy communion is given and shed “for you.” As Luther writes in the third question . . .

    How can bodily eating and drinking do such a great thing?
    Answer: Eating and drinking certainly do not do it, but rather the words that are recorded: “given for you” and “shed for you . . . for the forgiveness of sin.” These words, when accompanied by the physical eating and drinking, are the essential thing in the sacrament . . .

    Thus, the sacrament is given to us as a means of grace, not an object of devotion. The Sacrament of the Table is a way for me to hear the words and savor the taste of forgiveness. By parading the sacrament around, it becomes an end in and of itself rather than a means of grace. At least from my limited perspective, that’s the risk of Corpus Christi from a Lutheran perspective . . .

    Reply
  2. LutherPunk

    Let us recall the context of the confessions, however. People would often go from church to church just to see the elevation of the elements and participate in what we have termed “occular” communion.

    For Luther, this was not suffecient, and seemed like contempt for sacrament. After all, Jesus said, “Take and eat (drink).” This is how the grace was received, that one responded in faith to the gift offered by following the command.

    I think our context now is very different, however. A recent poll found that less than 50% of Lutheran even believed in the real presence, so it seems that we may need to recover some practice that (re)emphasizes his presence in the elements. Corpus Christi seems to be the logical time to do it, but I question if we need simply adopt Roman practices to do this, as many Anglo-Catholics have.

    Nice post, BTW.

    Reply
  3. Andy

    You know, every time I visit a Catholic Church I find myself wanting to genuflect with them, but it just doesn’t feel right. But I can’t really come up with any sound reasoning for why I shouldn’t.

    On the other hand, I do see Christ’s presence in the sacrament as a presence for me. That is, I think Christ is present as I meet him there. Now it may be that such a presence could extend to the time of adoration. Many Catholics certainly report adoration of the Eucharist as a deeply intimate experience.

    Reply
  4. The young fogey

    The Lutherans seem to have a stronger theology of the objective presence than classical Anglicans but their ‘functional’ view – it’s the Sacrament only as long as it’s meant to be used as that – while understandable (reacting against abuses and getting more to receive Communion) is amiss.

    Interestingly though the Anglicans have a weaker theology of Real Presence, an objective, lasting presence is implicit in the Book of Common Prayer, because while it seems to ban things like processions with the Sacrament it also says the remaining elements are to be consumed – they don’t revert to secular use. (Nor, it can be inferred, are they to be poured into the ground.)

    Reply
  5. Tim

    In what ways amiss, eh fogey? I’m curious as to how you think that this idea strays from the Lutheran distaste for sacrificial worship or idolatrous elevation of “things” to the level of inherent holiness.
    The slippery slope is this, where does the veneration of the object end? does the droplet spilled upon the carpet or the garment consecrate the item, lose its consecration or remain forever the holy element?
    I don’t see how you can have the veneration of the eucharist without moving into transubstantiation. The Lutheran Confession of real presence should no be seen as limited to the objects listed in the Bible, Augustine said (and Luther concurred) “Simply believe and you have eaten” that the faith, the act and the presence are bound up in the moment, not in the “stuff” If Christ is present in a non-transubstantial way, in the bread and wine, then Christ is also present in everything everywhere a la I will be with you until the end of the age and so the grape juice so many of us use (nod to the Methodists) while not spoken of in the Bible, still carries with it the real presence because it is bound up in the moment of communion.
    Adore not the bread, but the body of Christ made present in the promise.

    Reply

Leave a reply to The young fogey Cancel reply