The Sacred Tradition of Christ in His Church

Here is Part III of my ACELC free conference paper (16 April 2013).
The entire paper will be made available on the ACELC website.

It is with His own Institution of the Holy Supper that our Lord Jesus Christ establishes the Ministry of this Sacrament for the Life of His Church.  His divine command, “Do This in remembrance of Me,” is the power and authority by which the pastor acts in the place of Christ; so that each celebration of the Holy Communion, even to the close of the age, is not the pastor’s supper, but the Lord’s Supper.

Therefore, the “remembrance” of Jesus, here, is not simply (nor primarily) our recalling of the past, but it is first of all His own active remembering of us in love, and so also the Father’s remembering of Him on our behalf.  And then, for us, it is not only an intellectual and emotional “remembering,” but a bodily receiving and trusting of Christ, who gives Himself bodily to us, by and with His Word.

There, on the Altar, is the Lamb upon His Throne in the midst of His Church on earth.  And where He is, there is heaven, and all the company of heaven: The angels and archangels, the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures, the saints and martyrs of all the ages, are gathered together around Him at the Altar of His Church on earth.  For it is there that the crucified and risen Lord Jesus reveals and gives Himself to His disciples in the Breaking of the Bread.  Right there is the Gospel: in the Flesh.

So it is that everything else — in the Liturgy, in the Church’s worship, and throughout the Christian faith and life — everything else leads to and from this central high point, that is, to Christ Jesus at His Altar, to His Body and His Blood, which are given and poured out for us Christians to eat and to drink.

Catechesis aims, not only at making disciples of Jesus, but at bringing them to His Holy Sacrament, to eat and to drink His Body and His Blood in repentant faith.  It brings them to and from the waters of Holy Baptism, to the Altar of the Holy Communion.  Not only to begin with, to get them going on the way, but catechesis continues in pastoral care, whereby the Lord our Shepherd leads His lambs and sheep beside the still waters, and through the green pastures, to the Feast at His Table in His House.

The pastoral care of ongoing catechesis and discipleship, which is rooted in the ongoing significance of Holy Baptism, is also continued in the regular practice of Individual Confession and Absolution; so that the baptized faithful are regularly brought to the Holy Communion, by the Spirit through the Gospel, in the holiness, righteousness, and worthiness of faith in the forgiveness of Christ Jesus.

It ought to be noted that pastoral care is the context in which the Sacrament is administered; and that the administration of the Sacrament, itself, is a fundamental aspect and exercise of pastoral care for the Church.  The catholic practice of closed Communion also belongs to this context of pastoral care.

Preaching, likewise, always aims at bringing the disciples of Christ Jesus to and from His Supper.  Liturgically speaking, the Sermon has for its primary task the bringing of the people from the Lectern to the Altar, from the Word to the Word-made-Flesh, by proclaiming His death “until He comes.”  By the same token, the right administration of this Holy Sacrament, in accordance with the Gospel, includes and requires ongoing catechesis and the preaching of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ (which is the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins in His Name).  To be specific, the pastoral care that brings people to the Supper, also belongs to the right administration of the Supper.

“Word and Sacrament” is not simply a cliché, nor a “short list” of necessary parts to be performed. Indeed, the means of grace are not “parts” and “pieces” for us to put together like some kind of puzzle, but they are the means by which the Lord Himself lays hold of us in love, and puts us back together.  His Word and Sacrament are the heart and soul of the Liturgy, as well as its flesh and blood.  For these are His good gifts, and His good works, which He gives and does for us by the Ministry of the Gospel.

As we then live and worship the Lord by faith in His Ministry of the Gospel, by receiving His good gifts at His Altar, our Christian faith and life is characterized by thanksgiving (eucharistia), which culminates in the celebration of the Holy Communion: as Christ Himself gave thanks at His Supper.  From there, His Cup of Thanksgiving “runneth over” into the Christian life of love within the world.

Love for the neighbor is the fruit of Christ’s Love for the Christian in the Holy Communion.  That is the priestly vocation of all the baptized faithful, as they live to and from the Lord’s Altar, into the world wherever God has stationed them.  In the Divine Service, they stand in faith before the Father in Christ, hearing His Word and receiving His Gifts with prayer, praise, and thanksgiving.  So do they offer up themselves, their bodies and their lives, to serve their neighbors as Christ has served them.

This Divine Service is the sacred Tradition of the Church — the seat of true catholicity — namely, Christ in His “Word and Sacrament,” as the Lord’s Supper and its administration are handed over.  For Christ is the Head of His Church, and He is actively present with all of His speaking and doing and giving, within each congregation, wherever He gathers disciples, “in His Name,” by and for the preaching of His Gospel and the administration of His Sacraments in accordance with His Gospel.

It is the Tradition that begins on the night when He is “betrayed,” or, better to say, “handed over.”  Judas betrays Him, that is true, but it is the Father, first of all, who hands over His Son to the Cross. And the Son of God hands Himself over: To His voluntary suffering and death, yes, but so also to His Church, to His disciples as the first communicants, and to His Apostles as the first ministers of His Gospel.  The Apostles, in turn, hand over the same Lord Jesus Christ to the Church that comes after them, in the preaching of His Cross and Resurrection, and in the distribution of His Body and Blood.

The Divine Service is not a malleable tool in our hands, to be “used” by us to achieve some purpose (no matter how noble, sincere, or well-intentioned the purpose may be).  It is, rather, a sacred Tradition of the Lord, to be received from Him, and to be handed over faithfully to His Church, by His grace.

Marching for Life with the Common Service

I attended the 2013 March for Life and was glad to walk with fellow Missourians and thousands of others on the National Mall, up Constitution Avenue, past the Capitol to finish at the Supreme Court Building.  Between the Capitol and the Supreme Court the LCMS folks gathered prayed the Our Father and for the end to the legalized murder of unborn children in this land.  The LCMS Life Conference, held in conjunction with the March, was worth the price of admission.  I hope it is held again and that thousands more LCMS people attend.  One presenter exhorted us to encourage all District Presidents to be present next year and to lead a delegation from their district.  Huzzah to that!

Of particular note was the Divine Service prior to the March for Life.  Presided by Father Christopher Esget of Immanuel Church, Alexandria, Virginia with sermon preached by our Synodical President, the Mass was joyous and yet somber.  We Missourians present were not there on a junket funded by the Synod’s bank, (Full Disclosure:  I recently became a “Partner in Ministry” with LCEF, which I guess is what one becomes when they sell their home, move into a parsonage and have to park their money somewhere) but rather to speak, confess, march and pray for those who cannot speak for themselves and to mourn the 55 million children legally killed in the womb since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in 1973.  I must confess I had a sense of mourning and grief as I arrived in the Federal City.  I would think any pastor having done a decent amount of time in the Holy Office can rejoice in those lives saved through his ministrations, but also mourn over those lives taken despite his every effort.  All pastors need to repent of when we kept our mouths shut, when we did not open our mouths for the dumb and for those appointed to die or when our words were so convoluted that we hurt more than helped. 

So the Common Service (Divine Service III LSB) was a welcome gift.  Even though it was conducted in the ballroom of a hotel, one could close their eyes and consider that they were home.   Such is the strength of the Common Service.  Father Esget was Eucharistically vested, President Harrison was in cope, the Day of Saint Paul’s Conversion was observed, the Gospel Preached, the prayers were prayed and the Sacred Body and Precious Blood of Jesus were given for us poor sinners.  I was graciously asked by Father McClean, also of Immanuel Church, to assist in consuming the Holy Body and Blood and was given food and drink of life even more.  It was needed.  How thankful I am for Fathers Esget, McClean and Harrison and for their ministrations to those gathered, it steeled me for the March for Life, knowing that I, a poor sinner was cleansed of my wickedness and can speak with a forgiven voice for Life – Christ. 

How thankful I am for the Common Service.  Arriving a day before the March, I went to the National Mall to see my Uncle’s name on the Vietnam Memorial.  PFC Dennis L. Harmon, USMC, was killed in action 21 July, 1966 at Quang Tri Province, Vietnam.  I have his copy of The Lutheran Hymnal in my study, given to him on the day of his confirmation just a few years before his death.  He knew and prayed the Common Service, as do the children and grandchildren of his sister – Missourians, just like him.  So praying the Common Service, no real frills or extras added, Lutheran hymnody, Christ preached, Christ delivered, calmed me as my mind was filled with thoughts of the unborn killed, an uncle killed so long ago and my own gross sins.  The Common Service unites me to my uncle as it unites my mother, siblings, children, nieces and nephew to me in a way that is beyond our shared bloodline, but rather in a way that is of Christ, His Church and His Father.  It settles my soul.  If I am willing to listen, its familiar harmony brings me to the rest that has been enjoyed by so many for Sunday after Sunday and will in the future.  The retention (and re-introduction where necessary) of the Common Service in 21^st century Lutheranism following its near destruction in Lutheran Book of Worship/Lutheran Worship era will be a laudable and needed help toward true unity in practice within Missouri, if we all are willing to listen.

Lingering

Wednesday evenings at 7:30pm are for the Divine Service.  It has been that way for me for years now.  Wednesday night after Wednesday night I have been at an altar with the image of Christ Crucified and His Holy Apostles all around.  Preaching Christ and distributing His Holy Body and Blood to but a few each time, and this past Wednesday for the last time, at this place, at this altar, with this paten, with this blessed chalice.

And so I found myself lingering last Wednesday evening.  The verba were...slow.  The distribution... slower.  The cleansing of the Holy Vessels... at...a...snail's...pace.

The Sunday before was the last too.  With a great crowd.  A huge banquet to say farewell.  Family, friends, Holy Brothers, speeches, tears.  A beautiful hymn sing to finish it off. It was not quiet.  In. Any. Way.  It shouldn't have been.  It is a Confessional Lutheran Church, with Confessional Lutherans who sing Luther and Gerhardt and Nicolai.  With gusto.  People who love their pastor and bid him all the joy and love they've got.

But Wednesdays.  They were always quiet.  The Divine Service spoken.  The prayers of but a handful - a dozen or so.  Maybe twenty, sometimes five.  But Christ, this altar, this paten, this blessed chalice, with the lips of countless saints imprinted, among them the almost 80 I buried from this church.   With Christ.  In Christ.  For them, the quiet of death, but given over to life.  Christ's death.  Their death.  Christ's life.  Their life.  The quiet of peace eternal.  The quiet of a Wednesday night forever.

Now I sit at this desk for the last time.  Books in boxes, crucifixes and icons off the walls.  It is quiet and I linger here in this study to go someplace else where He will make use of me.  Confident in that, I still linger here.  It is the hardest thing to do, to leave saints behind.  Not only the ones living, but the ease of going to the cemetery to see the graves of those I loved and buried.  To linger there for a little while in between visits.  Peaceful.  Restful.  Joyful.

I suppose at the altar of the new place I'll learn to linger, to stay and find rest at that altar, with that paten, with that Blessed chalice.  It will take awhile I think.

How soon can I get Wednesday Night services going down there?

What Is It that I Want You to Do?

Since giving my presentation on "Consecrationism vs. Receptionism" at the Indiana District Church Workers' Conference this past October, I've been gratified by the feedback that I've received. Responses from various quarters have encouraged me in my good intentions to develop my outline and expand my notes into a proper article, blog post, or paper. I've actually managed to make some good progress on that project, but it will almost certainly have to stay on the back burner until we're well into Eastertide. Duty calls. For now, some other, preliminary thoughts.

Not all of the feedback on my presentation has been positive, though most of it has been. I've appreciated the many positive comments, of course, but I have been as much or more grateful for the few brothers who have made the effort to address their concerns and differences of opinion with me. It's a lot harder, and less fun for most of us, to express disagreement, and it's even more challenging to do so in a cordial and friendly manner. So, my sincere thanks goes out to those brothers who have showed me the courtesy of entering into fraternal discussion and debate with me. I would like to believe that those conversations have been mutually beneficial and edifying. I hope so. I know they have helped me to gain a better understanding of my colleagues, as well as greater clarity in my own thinking.

No doubt there are more brothers out there who did not like what I had to say in my presentation. I anticipated as much, and I'm not offended by the thought of it. The presentation was called for precisely because of disagreements concerning the consecration and corresponding conduct of the Sacrament, and I harbored no expectation that I would resolve the situation with a sectional presentation. What I was hoping to accomplish was the beginnings of a conversation among the brethren. Perhaps, in that respect, it has been somewhat successful so far. God grant it, for Jesus' sake.

If most of those brothers who disagree with me have not engaged me in discussion and debate, I understand. I hope they will at least be prompted to do some reading and studying of the evidence, and to engage their closer colleagues in conversation of the topic. To the glory of Christ, that is the goal.

I learned, earlier this week, that some conversation of my presentation occurred at one circuit pastors' conference. Nobody's been speaking out of school, so I don't know any details, but the gist of a concern that was passed on to me, indirectly, is that it's not feasible or practical for pastors to do what I want them to do.

That sort of response piques my interest, and gives me pause, and causes me to think: What have others perceived me to be saying and asking? What is it that my colleagues think I want them to do? And what is it that I actually do want them to do?

I'm somewhat puzzled by the comment and concern, since my presentation was basically, and almost entirely, a summary and assessment of historic Lutheran positions and practices. For the most part, I simply shared what our Confessions say, and what Luther and Chemnitz said, in contrast to Melanchthon and the later Lutheran scholastics. I also described particular practices of the 16th-century Lutherans, and the way that certain circumstances were addressed and dealt with in that day and age. Admittedly, I did also offer my own candid appraisal of these positions and practices, on the basis of my reading of the Holy Scriptures and our Lutheran Confessions.

But it's certainly not as though I, Rick Stuckwisch, were presuming to say: Here's what I want the rest of you to do. Well, okay, I was intending to say, and hopefully I did say, that I want my fellow Lutheran pastors to be "consecrationists" rather than "receptionists" in their preaching and teaching, catechesis and conduct of the Sacrament. That's true. I do want that. And I pray that it shall be so.

As far as the various pointed examples that I gave of 16th-century Lutheran practices, however, that isn't me but our fathers in the faith commending appropriate conduct and handling of the Lord's Supper. The fact that it is the Lord's Supper is an even more important point, and, I suppose, the key to what I do want and hope and pray for. I begin with myself in that regard, and seek to be faithful and above reproach in my stewardship of the Mysteries of God. Do I want my fellow stewards of those Mysteries also to be faithful? Of course! Should I not do and say what I can to help and encourage such faithfulness? Shame on me if I do not.

Faithfulness in the administration of the Holy Communion certainly includes reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ. That is at the heart of the topic, and, again, the reason for the presentation in the first place. As there is disagreement regarding where, when, and how the Body and Blood of Christ are present in the Supper, that obviously makes a difference with respect to appropriate reverence. But that isn't determined by me, nor by anyone else but our Lord Jesus Christ. Regardless of whatever other bowing may or may not be done, we must all bow our hearts and minds and consciences before His Holy Word. So, that, too, is what I want myself and everyone else to do.

Once the key point of disagreement over "Consecrationism vs. Receptionism" is taken into account, reverence for the Body and Blood of Christ may take a variety of different forms. While I have my own decided preferences and recommendations, in so far as ceremonies are concerned, I do not judge my brothers or condemn them for having more or fewer godly ceremonies than I do. Such things are free, though not insignificant; they are subject to pastoral discernment, discretion, and care. Whether another pastor elevates the Sacrament and genuflects before it, or not, does not in itself make or break our fellowship in Christ. Likewise, whether he wears a chasuble or not is neither decisive or divisive. These are things we can discuss in a fraternal spirit as Christian gentlemen, as brothers in office. Indeed, I welcome the opportunity to talk about the benefits of these and other similar ceremonies, and I'm certainly willing to hear the arguments of others, pro and con. But I have no desire or intention to press these practices upon my brothers.

What I did commend in my presentation, and I do so here and now, as well, on the basis of historic Lutheran precedent — but chiefly with respect for the Word of Christ, our Lord, and in reverence for His Body and His Blood — is a carefully considered preparation, handling, and disposition of the elements, before, during and after the consecration and distribution of the Sacrament. Such care was expected and insisted upon by our Lutheran fathers, as being of a piece with our confession of the Body and Blood of Christ.

Thus, to begin with, only as much bread and wine should be prepared upon the Altar for the consecration as may reasonably be expected to be necessary for the distribution. Exactness is difficult, if not impossible in some cases, but close approximation should not be hard: certainly not where regular pastoral care of the congregation is being exercised. In any event, deliberately preparing and consecrating far more bread and wine than will be needed for the distribution is irreverent and inexcusable. Better to estimate too low on occasion, and then to consecrate additional elements as needed, than deliberately to aim too high.

Following the Word of Christ Jesus, "This is My Body," and "This is My Blood," then, whatever a pastor's particular ceremonial may be, let his posture, movement, demeanor and conduct confess the truth of that Word! Please, dear brothers in Christ, do act like you believe it. Not only for the sake of a clear confession and consistent catechesis, but, above all, because it is true. Not as though the Lord would punish you for any frailties or mishaps, but because it is "truly meet, right, and salutary" that you should take care, and behave with dignity and decorum, as you handle and administer the holy Body and precious Blood of Christ.

The third specific thing that I do want my colleagues to do is really nothing more nor less than what our Lord Jesus Christ has given us Christians to do, namely, to eat and to drink His Body and His Blood. That seems so simple, and so obvious, and yet it isn't followed when it comes to the reliquae. Questions concerning what to do with the consecrated elements that remain at the conclusion of the distribution — which is to speak of the Body and Blood of Christ, as He Himself has declared, also concerning this bread and wine — are easily answered with the same Verba: "Take, eat." "Drink." Either immediately at the Altar, before concluding the Divine Service with the Post-Communion, or as soon after the Service as reasonable possible. For Luther and his followers in the 16th-century, the Sacrament extended from the consecration to the consumption of all the consecrated elements.

This practice, in harmony with our doctrine, rests solidly and simply on the Word of Jesus. So, yes, brothers, I do want you to do that. Because I want you to do what Jesus says. "Do whatever He tells you," the Blessed Virgin Mary also spoke to the servants of the feast. If care is taken in the quantities of bread and wine that are prepared for the consecration, it isn't difficult to consume whatever may remain. If, on any given occasion, more of the precious Blood of Christ remains than a pastor should consume by himself — since it is also wine, which is intoxicating — then he should enlist the assistance of other communicants (as the early Lutheran Church Orders also instruct).

This is that I want you to do. Not as a matter of ceremonial preference, but as a faithful and reverent administration of the Lord's Supper. Let's talk about ceremonies, too, as belonging to the catechesis and confession of the Sacrament. But do not suppose that I'm attempting to lay any weight upon your conscience concerning adiaphora. What God has left free, is free. But my real concern is with a more fundamental stewardship of this sacred Mystery of God. Test the spirit of what I am saying, then, and examine whether or not it is in harmony with the sure and certain Word of our Lord Jesus Christ. If it is not, then, I beg you by the mercies of God, show me my fault and correct me in brotherly love. But if what I advocate is in harmony with the Verba Testamenti Christi, I would simply urge you to honor our Lord and His gifts by bringing your practice into conformity with His Word.

The Consecration and the Conduct of the Holy Communion: A Bibliography

I've been doing my homework in preparation for a presentation on "Consecrationism vs. Receptionism" at the Indiana District Fall Church Workers' Conference (17-18 October).

The particular significance of this topic came to my attention a couple of years ago, in a conversation with my District President, the Reverend Dr. Daniel May. I am grateful to President May for asking me to address the topic, now, at our Indiana District Conference. Thanks, also, to the various brothers in Christ who have encouraged me in my preparations, to the dear people of my congregation for remembering me in their prayers in the course of these endeavors, and especially to my fellow Blackbirds, Paul Beisel, Gifford Grobien, Alan Ludwig, David Jay Webber, and William Weedon, for their helpful input and suggestions along the way.

The following is not an exhaustive bibliography, but it is a fairly complete list of the resources I have found most interesting, significant, and useful in my preparations. In addition to other comments, I welcome any further resources that readers might recommend; especially because, as the Spirit of Christ enables, I am inclined to write up some manner of article, blog post, or essay on this topic (though obviously not in advance of my presentation).

Beisel, Paul L. To Mix, or Not to Mix: The Sacramental Character of the Reliquiae. Unpublished paper, presented to the Iowa District Fall Pastors’ Conference, 2007.

Burnett, Amy N. “Basel and the Wittenberg Concord.” Archive for Reformation History 96 (2005): 33–56.

Chemnitz, Martin. Examination of the Council of Trent, Part II. Tr. Fred Kramer. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978. (Especially “Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist,” 217–332.)

Chemnitz, Martin. The Lord’s Supper: De coena Domini. Tr. J. A. O. Preus. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1979.

Chemnitz, Martin. Ministry, Word, and Sacraments: An Enchiridion. Tr. Luther Poellot. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1981. (Especially “The Lord’s Supper,” 120–32.)

Green, Lowell C. “Article VII: The Holy Supper.” A Contemporary Look at the Formula of Concord. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978.

Hardt, Tom G. A. The Sacrament of the Altar. Tr. Erling T. Teigen, 1998. (Condensed English version of Hardt’s doctoral dissertation, Venerabilis et Adorabilis Eucharistia, 1971.)

Hardt, Tom G. A. “The Saliger Sacramental Controversy.” Lutheran Quarterly IV, No. 4 (Winter 1990): 405–18.

Harris, Paul R. “The Angels Are Aware . . . and We Are Too.” Logia IV, No. 1 (1995): 21–29.

Killinger, Keith. “Domesticating an Untamed Sacramental Rule.” Lutheran Quarterly VII, No. 4 (Winter 1993): 401–24.

Kittelson, James M.; and Ken Schurb. “The Curious Histories of the Wittenberg Concord.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 50, No. 2 (April 1986): 119–37.

Luther, Martin. “The Adoration of the Sacrament (1523),” tr. Abdel Ross Wentz. Luther’s Works, Volume 36, ed. Abdel Ross Wentz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 271–305 (esp. 290–98).

Luther, Martin. “Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528),” tr. Robert H. Fischer. Luther’s Works, Volume 37, ed. Robert H. Fischer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961), 151–372 (esp. 180–94, 303–41).

Luther, Martin. “The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ—Against the Fanatics (1526),” tr. Frederick C. Ahrens. Luther’s Works, Volume 36, ed. Abdel Ross Wentz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 331–61 (esp. 341–51).

Murray, Scott R. "The Sacrament of the Altar and Its Relationship to Justification." Logia IX, No. 3 (2000): 11-16.

Peters, Edward Frederick. 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. [Th.D. Thesis, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, 1968.] Fort Wayne, Indiana: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1993.

Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics, Volume III. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1953. (Especially “What Constitutes the Lord’s Supper,” 365–73.)

Piepkorn, Arthur Carl; and Charles McClean. The Conduct of the Service. Fort Wayne, Indiana: Redeemer Press, 2006. (Especially “The Service of the Sacrament,” 21–35.)

Saar, David P. “Still Another View of Consecration.” Lutheran Quarterly IX, No. 4 (Winter 1995): 473–85.

Sasse, Hermann. “Consecration and Real Presence (1957).” Scripture and the Church: Selected Essays of Hermann Sasse, ed. Jeffrey J. Kloha and Ronald R. Feuerhahn (St. Louis: Concordia Seminary, 1995), 272–317.

Sasse, Hermann. “The Lutheran Understanding of the Consecration (1952).” We Confess the Sacraments, tr. Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985), 113–38.

Sasse, Hermann. This Is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, Revised Edition. Adelaide, Australia: Lutheran Publishing House, 1977.

Schmeling, Gaylin R. “Review Essay: The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz.” Lutheran Quarterly VIII, No. 3 (Autumn 1994): 321–7.

Stephenson, John R. The Lord’s Supper. St. Louis: The Luther Academy, 2003. (Esp. Ch. 5, “In His Person and Name,” 83–109.)

Stephenson, John R. “Reflections on the Appropriate Vessels for Consecrating and Distributing the Precious Blood of Christ.” Logia IV, No. 1 (1995): 11–19.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “The 1959 St. Louis–Springfield Faculty Statement in the Light of the Saliger Controversy.” Logia XIV, No. 1 (2005): 11–18.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “The Case of the Lost Luther Reference.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 43:2 (October 1979): 295–309.

Teigen, Bjarne W. The Lord’s Supper in the Theology of Martin Chemnitz. Brewster, MA: Trinity Lutheran Press, 1986.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “Martin Chemnitz and SD VII, 126.” A Lively Legacy: Essays in Honor of Robert Preus (Lake Mills, Iowa: Graphic Publishing Co., Inc., 1985), 164-172.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “The Nihil Rule Revisited.” Lutheran Quarterly VIII, No. 3 (Autumn 1994): 269–85.

Teigen, Bjarne W. “Views on Reviews.” Confessional Lutheran Research Society Newsletter, No. 10 (Easter 1988).

Teigen, Erling T. “Luther and the Consecration” Mysteria Dei: Essays in Honor of Kurt Marquart. Fort Wayne, Indiana: Concordia Theological Seminary Press, 1999.

Walther, C. F. W. Pastoral Theology. Translated and abridged by John M. Drickamer. New Haven, Missouri: Lutheran News, Inc. (Esp. Chapter 17, “The Administration of Holy Communion,” 130–145.)

Wengert, Timothy J. “Luther and Melanchthon on Consecrated Communion Wine.” Lutheran Quarterly XV (2001): 24–42.

Ziegler, Roland F. “Should Lutherans Reserve the Consecrated Elements for the Communion of the Sick?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 67, No. 2 (April 2003): 131–47.

Life in the Sacrament of the Altar

In the Holy Supper of our Lord He gives us life and salvation. His life. The salvation that He has earned by the shedding of His holy and innocent blood and His bitter suffering and death.

Avoiding all secular arguments about precious metals, alcohol content of the wine and even medical studies, the question is this: Can or would Jesus as He is pouring His very medicine of immortality into our bodies also give or allow us to receive human sickness or even death?

Can the Blood of Him who died to all sin, death, devil and hell even contain or be contaminated by these things of man's illnesses as the Chalice is moved from one forgiven sinner to the next?

Are the concerns about being infected or passing infections concerns because of either unbelief or weak faith or are they legitimate concerns that can be born out in historic example?

Although individual cups have crept into the Church because of unbelief first on the part of those who do not believe in Christ's true physical presence in the bread and the wine, they have also made their way into the churches of confessing congregations. Must they remain for the sake of the weaker brethren or may they be removed after appropriate teaching, visitations, and example?

As Celebrant, I always consume all the relique and although there are those who drink who are ill, have sores on or in their mouths, I have never gotten ill. Does it not truly come down to the truth of what it is that we are receiving? The very blood of Jesus, Son of God and son of Mary! I do not believe that He can or would give me illness or even death in the eating and the drinking of Him. Yes, because of sin in the world and my own sin I will sometimes be ill and I will die unless He returns in glory first. But to believe, teach or confess that in the Holy Supper of the Lord one could or would be made or allowed to become ill or die is not something I am able to fathom because of what it is that we receive.

Please, speak to me if I am wrong, correct my teaching if it is in error. Thank you brothers. Blessed Lent to you all.

Liturgical Chaos in Catholicism

If you want to see a bit of the cooky stuff that happens in the Roman Church (and some Episcopals), check out the video. I do not in anyway subscribe to the thank you given to the pope at rome at the end of the show.

HT: Bad Vestments

Forbid them not?

A brief history is required before the question is posed for discussion.

About five years ago I began going to one of the Bethesda homes in our area and having a weekly service with the residents. The residents of this home are for the most part fairly low functioning with the exception of two residents who speak a bit, one more than the other. Those two had at some point in time and in some manner been catechized and are communicants. One of them had resided at Watertown for a long time and thus received very regular catachesis.

These visits to the home were not usually marked by great attention on the behalf of the residents and those who worked there were oft times in pursuit of one resident or another.

Three years ago they all began to come to the church on Thursday afternoons for the service. They would walk or be wheeled in and sit in the front pews of the sanctuary. I would vest, light the candles and use an abbreviated liturgy for the service. (Invocation, confession and absolution, readings, Apostles creed, homily, Lord's prayer, words of institution, holy communion, prayer of thanksgiving, benediction and an opening and closing hymn-the same each week)

They paid attention, they were for the most part quiet. There were reactions to the Word, to the singing, to their presence at the Lord's table. They were different. Most notably, the one resident whom I Baptized was more expressive during his time at the rail. They continue to come every Thursday and on most Sundays to the Divine service as well. Three of the women who work with these residents have been catechized and have joined the Church as well.

So now to my question. Two of them are communicants and four are not. Bethesda has some catechetical materials but they are not practical for those who do not communicate. I believe that by the demonstrated change from being at the home to being in the house of the Lord, from being inattentive to paying attention, this is reflective of a change wrought by God in them and they have been prepared over these years to receive the Lord's Supper.

I am interested in your ideas and opinions. I will say that there is not the time and/or proper manner to teach them more or to examine them. I also have one little girl who is very handicapped and unable to speak whose parents bring her faithfully to church. Her siblings all commune except for the 6 year old who will soon. I believe I should be communing this 12 year old girl with handicaps as well. What say you brothers?

The Communion

Offered for your consideration, comment and correction:

The communal nature of the Sacrament does not derive from the communal gathering of the Church; but, rather,

The communal nature of the Church derives from the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament.

Shut-in Communions

Question to my fellow bloggers and responders:

Do you commune with your shut-ins sometimes, all the time, never? Is there any historical or theological argument for against communion with shut-ins?

Some history. In my previous parish, I had very few shut-ins. I communed with them every time. If I saw three shut-ins in one day, I received the Lord's Supper three times. It never really entered my mind not to commune with them. Christ was present, offering His body and blood, and I thought that it would have been strange not to commune when Christ was present with his Church, offering his body and blood for the forgiveness of sins.

I now have several more shut-ins where I currently serve, and the question has come up in my mind several times, "Should I commune with them every time?" I see no law against it, yet my conscience (or something) is telling me, "This is too often, you really should (or could) wait until Sunday." What I have started to do is this: if I have multiple shut-in Communion visits, I commune at the first one of the day, and then not at the others. My fear is not "having too much forgiveness," but treating as common what is holy and sacred.

I'm curious as to what others do, why, and if I need to modify my practice to reflect a more Biblical and Confessional mindset. Does anyone else struggle with this?

Elders, mine are the elected variety not the ordained type, what should they be allowed to do?

I like many of you brothers have a board of Elders. They are men from the congregation with no special training or even aptitude for any of the various functions of the pastoral office. Yet, from somewhere in the past, this board was formed to assist the pastor. Among their functions according to the Constitution and bylaws of the congregation they are to pray for the pastor, ensure his family is cared for and that he has appropriate time off. Additionally they are to determine along with the pastor the worship practice of the congregation, approve worship resources. They were, by the time I arrived, assisting with the distribution of the elements in the Holy Communion.

The previous pastor had them distribute the host and the individual cups and he would distribute the Blood of Christ. I changed that to my distribution of the Host as only the pastor can admit to the Holy Supper and with the Host coming first, it seemed logical for the pastor to go first.

I have had a field worker now vicar for the past 4 years and I have had him distribute the Chalice and I have been down to one elder from previously having two, (one for the chalice, one for the individual cups). At the mid-week services I have not had an Elder serve as the vicar and I do it all. I first bring the host, then I bring the Chalice and the vicar follows with the individual cups. (no complaints on time here as there are many fewer in attendance so the service does not go "too long".)

Although I am not one concerned with the length of the service, (Divine service every Sunday is about 1 hr and 10-15 minutes) I know that when the vicar leaves, I would like to continue to bring the host and the chalice and only have an Elder bring the individual cups, (ideally we would do away the individual cups or I would bring them as well but I do not live in the ideal world).

How do you do what you do? Have any of you had my situation and gotten away from it and if so how did you do it? Have you been able to get rid of the individual cups and how? Do you have your elders at least wear some sort of robe for their part when they enter the chancel? Looking for some historic and practical help here. Thanks brothers.

Admission to the Holy Supper

A Lutheran church body (not the LCMS or the ELCA) has the following statement on admission to the Sacrament of the Altar:

Do you practice open or closed communion?

We practice “responsible communion,” which is neither open nor closed. That is, according to the Bible we have a responsibility to tell people what we believe (“we receive the body and blood of Jesus Christ with the bread and wine, for the forgiveness of sins”), based on Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 1 Corinthians 11:23-28. The person has the responsibility to check with the Bible to ensure that it does teach that, and that the person agrees with that. Administration is left with the local pastor as part of his pastoral care.

This strikes me as a lot of bureaucratic gibberish designed to evade an uncomfortable question. Am I misreading this? Is this statement in accordance with what we confess in the LCMS? How about LCMS practice?

--- Rev. Larry Beane

Is it Still the Blood of Christ if Grape Juice is Used in the Lord’s Supper?

Is it Still the Blood of Christ if Grape Juice is Used in the Lord’s Supper?



Thesis I: It can be clearly established with certainty that wine made from grapes was used in the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament, and is therefore included in the “this do” command of our Lord in His institution.



While Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18 refer to “fruit of the vine” this is not a reference to what we call “grape juice.” “Fruit of the vine” literally refers to the grape itself, rather than its juice. Grapes inherently contain a leavening agent and left to themselves will ferment naturally. One must assume that intoxicating wine was being used to celebrate the Lord's Supper in the church of Corinth for believers were combining the love feast with the Lord's Supper and some were partaking of the Lord's Supper in a drunken state as a result (cf. 1 Cor. 11:21 where the Greek verb metheuo is used i.e. intoxicated). Although wine was clearly abused by the Corinthian believers in conjunction with the Lord's Supper, Paul does not condemn the Corinthian Christians for using wine, nor does he prohibit the use of wine in the Lord's Supper. Paul's correction is directed toward their sinful abuse of wine not their lawful use of it. If wine was not lawfully to be used in the Lord's Supper, here was the ideal time for Paul to demonstrate where the use of wine would lead those who broke God's law by using it in the Lord's Supper. The silence concerning any prohibition of wine in the Lord's Supper at this point is emphatic.



The Christian Fathers, as well as the Jewish rabbis, have understood "the fruit of the vine" to mean wine in the proper sense. Our Lord, in instituting the Supper after the Passover, availed himself of the expression invariably employed by his countrymen in speaking of the wine of the Passover. Furthermore, the drink offering that was poured out before the Lord at the Passover and on other occasions was wine not grape juice (Num. 28:24; cf. Num. 28:14 where the drink offering is specifically identified as wine, Hebrew word: yayin ). It would certainly follow that the Lord used wine at the Passover celebration (and at the institution of the Lord's Supper) with His disciples in Matthew 26:29.


There was a Greek word available to the writers of the New Testament which might have been used to refer to grape juice (“trux”) if they had wanted their readers to understand that the common beverage used by Christ, the disciples, Timothy, the presbyters and deacons, and the Corinthian believers was unfermented grape juice (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature , by Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, p.564). The Holy Spirit of God chose not to use the word “trux” (grape juice) even one time in the New Testament. There is therefore no reference in the New Testament to unfermented grape juice, but all references are to fermented wine. To be sure, the Lord’s Supper was instituted in the context of a Hebrew Passover which used wine made from grapes. Jesus instructs the disciples to “make ready for the Passover,” which included wine.


Thesis II: While the Scriptures condemn drunkenness (the abuse of alcohol), alcohol itself is not condemned by God.

One can certainly demonstrate that alcohol itself is not immoral. Scripture only condemns drunkenness or the abuse of alcohol, but not responsible and legal use of alcohol. One need only cite Jesus’ first miracle of turning water into wine at the Cana wedding for proof, in addition to Psalm 104:15; Deuteronomy 14:26; Amos 9:13; Joel 3:18; Isaiah 5:11; I Timothy 5:23. Later temperance or prohibition movements in society do not reflect an accurate teaching of Scripture in that regard, but derive from protestant revivalism or pietism. In fact, Mr. Welch invented grape juice in order to avoid wine at Communion, because he believed to consume wine was sinful. Also to be noted was the fact that Welch did not believe that the Holy Communion is the body and blood of Christ, but only a symbol at best. As one scholar has also pointed out:
Abstention from the use of wine has, occasionally, been declared obligatory by heretics. It was one of the tenets of the heresy of Gnosticism in the second century. Tatian, the founder of the sect known as the Encratites, forbade the use of wine, and his adherents refused to make use of it even in the Sacrament of the Altar; in its place they used water.



Thesis III: It is not our personal faith which makes the Lord’s Supper what it is but the command and institution of Christ. Therefore to change what Christ instituted in this sacrament is spiritually dangerous and puts the sacrament into doubt. Included in the command “this do” is the use of the physical elements of bread and wine made from grapes along with the rest of the institution of Christ Jesus. The Lord’s Supper is not merely a symbol or a reminder but a means of grace.


The Lord attached His Word and promise to a particular way of observing this sacrament. What is used in the sacraments is a doctrinal matter, not simply a matter of convenience. Since the Lord’s Supper is not merely symbolic, what we use in the Lord’s Supper is not merely a case of using something that resembles wine or even resembles blood. It is a matter of faithfully carrying out the institution of the Lord Jesus. While acknowledging that there may be some circumstances in which an individual may have a physical difficulty with alcohol, there are better and worse ways to pastorally work with this situation. If we are to deal with these situations catechetically, then we must deal with them in such a way as to respond compassionately to the physical health situation of the individual communicant, but also be theologically faithful to a biblical and confessional understanding of the Lord’s Supper. The Word comes to the element Christ designated, and it becomes the sacrament.

It is not our faith that makes the earthly elements the body and blood of Christ, but that is according to Christ’s command. Our faith simply receives (passively) the benefits of this gift and gives thanks. For those who in special circumstances there are three options: (1) to receive wine diluted with water; (2) intinction (slightly dip the host in the wine); or (3) to refrain from the Lord’s Supper and be comforted by the preached Gospel, Holy Baptism, and Holy Absolution in Christ. For many because of illness, mental incapacity, or age, there comes a time at which many are not able to commune, but what they have received and continue to receive in the other means of grace sustains them.


A RELATED MATTER: Is It Our Personal Faith Which Makes the Real Presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Lord’s Supper? Can the pastor make whatever elements he chooses to be the body and blood of Christ by simply speaking the words of institution? No.


That the blessed bread is the holy body and the blessed wine is the holy blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, can only be ascribed to the word, command, and institution of Christ and not to our personal faith. It would be true, regardless of whether we believed or not. It is due to the powerful Word of Christ. When celebrated according to what is entailed in the Lord’s command “this do”, it is the effective Word of our Lord that brings this miracle about. This is why the evangelical practice of closed communion is necessary. The real presence is objective.



With this said, we must not take the words to be “magic” in the occult sense that we can substitute any or “similar” earthly elements we want in place of the bread and grape wine, say the words, and still have the real presence. (Not unlike the way some made fun of the Verba with the corruption "hocus pocus.") That would not be true or reliable. In fact, it would be an abuse of the sacrament and contradict the clear command of Christ. Again, it is not our personal faith nor simply saying the words over any element that has the promise and blessing of Christ that it be His body and blood. That would be an occultish practice. The pastor does not have the ability or authority to change the elements (I Cor. 4:1-2). As St. Paul says in I Corinthians 11 about the Holy Supper: “That which I received from the Lord I also delivered unto you…”.


What is necessary for it to truly be the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood is that it be done clearly according to Christ’s institution and command “this do” on the night in which He was betrayed, accounted for us in the Holy Scriptures in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and in I Corinthians. In a proper celebration the pastor should serve as liturgist or celebrant, bread and wine made from grapes (either red or white) should be used, there should be the giving of thanks, and the Lord’s Words should be spoken or sung clearly and distinctly before the congregation. The sacrament should be consecrated, distributed, and received by those who have been examined and absolved, and being thus received in the unity of the one holy Christian faith in the Divine Service (Acts 2:42; I Cor. 10).


The Lord's Supper is what the Lord has made it. The Lord does this by His very own words. Without the Words of Institution there is no Lord's Supper. They are Christ's words and He is speaking them through the mouth of His called and ordained man. The words of Christ are directed toward the elements as consecratory words. This is not simply for “setting apart” the bread and wine (a generic consecration), but rather that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. This is why the versatility of the freestanding altar serves so well to make this clear before all.

The Lord’s Supper is what the Lord has made it. Without bread and wine made from grapes there is no Lord’s Supper, just s without the words of institution there is no Eucharist. Similarly we may not change the element in Baptism to something other than water or change the words. These are the exclusive and particular earthly elements that the Lord Jesus intended and commanded to be used and to which He attached His promise when He instituted the gift of the Eucharist. To change the earthly element is the same as saying that the Temple in the Old Testament could have been built somewhere other than Jerusalem or to say that Christ could have been born of someone other than the Virgin Mary or somewhere other than Bethlehem. Anything else cannot be the Lord’s Supper with any Scriptural certainty. When there is no Scriptural certainty, no clear following of the Lord’s command and institution, then faith cannot be sure either. Faith needs to have its proper object, not just sincerity, optimism, or the thought of what God might think or do or understand apart from His clear revealed will and word in Scripture (sola Scriptura).

All of this is so that we might have a firm foundation for our faith and a clear, undistorted and unpolluted Gospel of salvation in Christ our crucified and risen Lord, who comes to us in grace and mercy in the Divine Service. It is our personal faith which receives, but does not cause, the benefits of this Gospel sacrament, forgiveness, life and salvation through the body and blood of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Our personal faith is passive in receiving this precious gift of Holy Communion, but then responds with thanksgiving, praise, service to our neighbor, and the sanctified life in Christ who dwells with His Church, and within us.

Who Communes the Pastor?: An LSB Rubric

Distinguishing Between the Person and Office of the Pastor in Communion Within the Divine Service

Rubrics are the directions in red print in the hymnal and other liturgical books that give instructions and suggestions on the “how” of the liturgical rites and ceremonies. In Altar Book of our new hymnal Lutheran Service Book, the following rubric is given for all five of the Divine Service settings:

The pastor and those who assist him receive the body and blood of Christ first, the presiding minister communing himself and his assistants. Then they distribute the body and blood to those who come to receive… [LSB Altar Book, pages 168, 207, 249, 270, 285].



Likewise, Martin Luther’s Formula Missae [Luther’s Latin Mass] (1523) notes: “Then, while the Agnus Dei is sung, let him [the liturgist] communicate, first himself and then the people” [Luther’s Works American Edition, volume 53, p.29]. Luther Reed, in his important book, The Lutheran Liturgy, states:

Self-communion of the minister has always been an open question in Lutheran liturgics. Luther himself approved it and repeatedly defended it (deinde communicet tum sese, tum populum [Formula Missae (Luther’s Latin Mass)]). It is quite certain that for a generation or two this liturgical action, which belongs to the integrity of the rite, was usual in Lutheran services. Later when liturgical knowledge and feeling had declined, dogmatic Biblicism and pietistic subjectivism brought about its disuse. The dogmaticians, however, generally allow it, though advising that if another minister be present he should administer it to the officiant. The Schmalkald Articles forbid self-communion only when this involves reception apart form the congregation (Part II, Art. II). Chemnitz says the minister includes himself in the confession and absolution and he may include himself in the Communion. [Luther D. Reed. The Lutheran Liturgy, p.372]



As pointed out above, the “private mass” that Lutherans condemn is not the pastor communing himself in the midst of the regular Divine Service of the congregation. The “private mass” that is condemned is a mass or Divine Service where no one communes or where only the pastor communes without the congregation. Unheard of until the latter half the twentieth century was communion of pastors by those who were not called and ordained. This is why the circuit “Winkel” conference was instituted during the time of Pietism where pastors would commune among each other. While upholding Augsburg Confession, Article XIV, the sad fact was that during Pietism those pastors did not want to be seen communing, lest the congregation think the pastor had sins! But honoring Augsburg Confession, Article XIV and having the pastor commune with the congregation is the most evangelical and biblically faithful. Of course, if there is more than one pastor present, it is certainly fitting for them to commune each other, but it is still not necessary for it to be that way.



One should not read into the pastor’s “self-communion” a motive of thinking he is “holier than thou” by this practice. Hopefully one would accord the pastor what Luther explains in the eighth commandment by “putting the best construction on everything.” It is simply distinguishing between the person of the pastor as baptized and forgiven sinner vs. the office that he holds by call and ordination. (If he thought he had no sin, why would he desire to commune and so receive the forgiveness of sins?) We confess in our Augsburg Confession, Article XIV that, “no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called”[Latin rite vocatus/German ordentlicher beruf]. The doctrine of the royal priesthood of believers (I Peter 2:9) is not so much about “everyone a minister” or “everyone a pastor” but it is about being a “go between” between your neighbor and the Lord for their sake. We do not appreciate either as a gift if we only compare the pastoral office and the royal priesthood of believers with each other in terms of who does what – each is a unique gift. If one upholds a confessional understanding of the duties of the pastoral office in regard to administering the Lord’s Supper, and if it is still asserted that the pastor could not commune himself, then one is left with the also untenable position of the pastor communing only at pastors’ conferences (and only among other pastors!). So where there is one pastor, and since he too needs the forgiveness of sins given in the Holy Supper, the pastor rightly distinguishes between his person and his office and benefits from the Lord’s Supper that way also – just as he does in absolution or when the Scriptures are proclaimed. So in the Formula of Concord’s denial that, “No man's word or work, be it the merit or speaking of the minister,” brings about the real presence is not to deny that the body and blood are, “distributed through our ministry and office” (cf. FC-SD, VII.74-77). When an elder or deacon assists the pastor in the general distribution to the congregation, he does that as an extension (auxiliary) of the pastor for the sake of the rest of the people and for good order. In conclusion, it is certainly proper and well within orthodox Lutheran practice (and historic Christianity) for the pastor, in distinguishing his person and office, to commune himself in the midst of the congregation in the Divine Service. So the pastor also benefits from the sermon and absolution he speaks within the congregation – his individual person benefits from the ministry of the pastoral office for the church.

To Clarify My Points on Catechesis and the Holy Communion

Setting aside the particular case that I previously mentioned, and taking up the question put to me concerning Dr. Luther's Catechisms, here is a more general summary of my understanding of catechesis in relation to the Holy Communion:

In the past, as a prerequisite for First Communion, I required that catechumens memorize (and recite from memory) the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, the Our Father, all but the longest of Luther's questions and answers on Holy Baptism, as well as the first two questions and answers concerning the Office of the Keys and the Sacrament of the Altar.
　
In more recent years, I have not required that a catechumen have all of this material memorized prior to First Communion. Rather, I have taken into account the context of ongoing catechesis that a young catechumen is receiving, both in the home and within the life of the church. I have tried to distinguish between the purpose and blessing of memorizing the Word, and the Word of God itself, which alone brings about and sustains repentance and faith. That is to say, it is not memorizing per se that catechizes the child and prepares him or her for the Holy Communion; it is the Word of God, alive with Christ and His Spirit, which does that divine work of catechization. Memorization serves and supports that Word of God; but so does a familial context of daily prayer and faithful church attendance.
　
Some children can memorize the Word very easily, without necessarily being engaged in the Word through daily prayer and catechesis. I rejoice in their knowledge and confession of the Word, to be sure, but I do not consider such a child to be better prepared than another child who may find memory work a constant struggle, but who is daily and richly immersed in that Word of God within the family and in the life of the Church.
　
In the Preface to the Large Catechism, Dr. Luther teaches (and, with him, we teach and confess) that fathers are required by God to catechize their families and households; in doing so, they are to expect their children and other members of the household to repeat the primary texts of the chief parts word for word, and that any servant who is unwilling to do so should be dismissed (and any child who refuses to do so sent to bed without any supper). Repeating things word for word is an effective pedagogical method of catechesis, and it certainly does lead to memorization of the text being repeated. However, it is the process of teaching through repetition that is fundamental, rather than the sooner-or-later outcome of verbatim memorization. The primary burden, in such a case, is on the catechist rather than the catechumen.
　
Dr. Luther indicates that one should know the texts of the first three chief parts before receiving the Holy Communion; but I do not equate "knowledge" with memorization (nor memorization per se with knowledge). Children are taught to know these texts by their parents and families praying them and confessing them and putting them into practice in the home. Again, this very process will foster and facilitate the memorization of these texts, but that will happen at different paces and intervals of progress, depending on the individual’s intellectual capacity and ability.
　
In Luther's Preface to the Small Catechism, he deplores the fact that people who are supposed to be Christians, who have been baptized and are receiving the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, do not even know the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, or the Ten Commandments. He faults the bishops and pastors, in particular, because they have not been catechizing the people even in these most basic, fundamental matters of God's Word. Thus, Luther urges his brother pastors to have compassion for the people, and to "inculcate this Catechism in the people, especially the young." It is clear from the context that what Luther means by "this Catechism" is the primary texts of the first three chief parts. His own explanations are described as these "tables and charts," which are offered as a means of assisting in the instruction of the Catechism itself.
　
Luther then outlines a plan for the process of catechesis, by which the people (including those already receiving the Holy Communion) are to be drilled in the basics and taught to understand them. It is evident from Luther's comments and examples that he envisions this to be a pattern for ongoing, lifelong catechesis, which serves both young and old, each age according to its own circumstances.
　
When Luther speaks of the necessity of a fixed text, it is again clear that he has the primary texts of the first three chief parts in mind: "The honored fathers understood this well, and therefore they all consistently used one form of the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments." Of course, the same principle applies to the explanations that Dr. Luther provides in the form of charts and tables, but he is not referring to his explanations at this point.
　
With the young, in particular, Dr. Luther urges that their pastors "keep to a single, fixed, and permanent form and wording, and teach them first of all the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, etc., according to the text, word for word, so that they can repeat it after you and commit it to memory." I do note the "etc." But I also note the distinction between "repeating it after you" and "committing it to memory." The repeating, as I have indicated, is a pedagogical method that aims toward memorization.
　
Luther goes on to say that "those who refuse to learn . . . are not to be admitted to the Sacrament." He does not say, "those who have not yet memorized," but "those who refuse to learn." There is a big difference between these things. It is one thing to be in the process of learning, repeating things word for word, and thereby beginning to commit them to memory; and quite another thing to refuse any part in this process. In any case, it is interesting that Dr. Luther mentions only here, at this first step in the process, anything about refusing to admit someone to the Sacrament. He makes that comment here, and connects it specifically to the process of learning (not to the completion of memorization). Only afterwards, in describing the next stage in the process of ongoing catechesis, does he advise, "after they have well memorized the text, then explain the meaning so that they understand what they are saying." Here is where Luther's simple explanations are brought to the fore. But nothing more is said about refusing anyone admission to the Holy Communion.
　
Indeed, what Luther does go on to say, in his description of ongoing catechesis, is that the people should be taught to yearn for the Sacrament of the Altar. He writes that, "if anyone does not seek or desire the Lord's Supper at the very least four times a year, it is to be feared that he despises the Sacrament and is no Christian." "For a person not to prize highly the Sacrament is tantamount to saying that he has no sin, no flesh, no devil, no world, no death, no danger, no hell." Therefore, without setting up any law about it, the pastors should "emphasize clearly the benefit, need, usefulness and blessing connected with the Sacrament, and also the harm and danger of neglecting it."
　
So, are the little children not in need of this Sacrament also? Do they not have flesh and blood, and live in the world, and face the assaults of the devil? Are they not Christians, who ought to be taught to seek and desire the Lord's Supper? Although their catechesis is just beginning, and may be at a very elementary stage, they should in fact be brought to such a hunger for the Body and Blood of Christ, the Medicine of Immortality.
　
Exactly as Dr. Luther writes in his Large Catechism, at the conclusion of his teaching of the Sacrament of the Altar: "Let this serve as an exhortation, then, not only for us who are old and advanced in years, but also for the young people who must be brought up in Christian teaching and a right understanding of it. With such training we may more easily instill the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer [again, the first three chief parts] into the young so that they will receive them with joy and earnestness, practice them from their youth, and become accustomed to them. For it is completely useless to try to change old people. We cannot perpetuate these and other teachings unless we train the people who come after us and succeed us in our office and work, so that they in turn may bring up their children successfully. In this way God's Word and a Christian community will be preserved.
　
"Therefore let all heads of a household remember that it is their duty, by God's injunction and command, to teach their children or have them taught the things they ought to know. Because they have been baptized and received into the people of Christ, they should also enjoy this fellowship of the Sacrament so that they may serve us and be useful. For they must all help us to believe, to love, to pray, and to fight against the devil." (Kolb-Wengert, 475-476)
　
Earlier, in his Preface to the Large Catechism, Dr. Luther has similarly stated: "As for the common people, we should be satisfied if they learned the three parts that have been in Christendom from ancient days, so that all who wish to be Christian in fact as well as in name, both young and old, may be well trained in them and familiar with them." He then goes on to identify specifically what he means by this, citing the primary texts of the Ten Commandments, the Apostles' Creed, and the Our Father. "These are the most necessary parts that we must first learn to repeat word for word. The children should be taught the habit of reciting them daily, when they arise in the morning, when they go to their meals, and when they go to bed at night." (Kolb-Wengert, 383-385)
　
Here we have, not only a pedagogical method for memorization, but, more importantly, the discipline of daily prayer and confession. Again, it is not those who have failed to memorize, but those who "refuse to learn these things," who should not be tolerated. Praying and confessing them several times a day with the head of the household will certainly result in memorizing them. Yet, again, it is not the accomplished fact of memorizing, but the reciting of the texts that is expected of children and all other members of the household. Once more, the texts that Dr. Luther is here referring to, as in each case above, are the primary texts of the first three chief parts. That is made explicitly clear in what he says. "For in these three parts everything contained in the Scriptures is comprehended in short, plain, and simple terms" (Kolb-Wengert, 385).
　
"When these three parts have been understood, it is appropriate that one ought also to know what to say about our Sacraments, which Christ Himself instituted, Baptism and the Holy Body and Blood of Christ," according to St. Matthew and St. Mark. "Thus we have, in all, five parts covering the whole of Christian teaching, which we should constantly teach and require recitation word for word." This daily recitation, coupled with sermons, Psalms and hymnody, constitutes the ongoing rhythm of lifelong catechesis; not as a pre-requisite before receiving the Sacrament, but as the life of the Christian who has been baptized and is receiving the Sacrament. "The reason we take such care to preach on the catechism frequently is to impress it upon our young people, not in a lofty and learned manner but briefly and very simply, so that it may penetrate deeply into their minds and remain fixed in their memories." (Kolb-Wengert, 385, 386)
　
Memorization is an important and salutary aim, one that is accomplished by the tried and tested pedagogical method of repeating fixed texts, word for word, on a regular basis. Repetition is the mother of learning. That remains true and necessary, not only prior to First Communion, but all life long. For, as Dr. Luther writes in his longer (later) preface to the Large Catechism:
　
"I am also a doctor and a preacher, just as learned and experienced as all of them who are so high and mighty. Nevertheless, each morning, and whenever else I have time, I do as a child who is being taught the catechism and I read and recite word for word the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Psalms, etc. I must still read and study the catechism daily, and yet I cannot master it as I wish, but must remain a child and pupil of the catechism — and I also do so gladly. These fussy, fastidious fellows would like quickly, with one reading, to be doctors above all doctors, to know it all and to need nothing more. Well this, too, is a sure sign that they despise both their office and the people's souls, yes, even God and His Word. They do not need to fall, for they have already fallen all too horribly. What they need, however, is to become children and begin to learn the ABCs, which they think they have long since outgrown. . . .
　
"And what else are these bored, presumptuous saints doing — people who will not read and study the catechism daily and have no desire to — except thinking that they are more learned than God Himself and all His holy angels, Prophets, Apostles, and all Christians? God Himself is not ashamed to teach it daily, for He knows of nothing better to teach, and He always keeps on teaching this one thing without proposing anything new or different. And all the saints know of nothing better or different to learn, although they cannot learn it to perfection." (Kolb-Wengert, 380-381, 382)
　
In all of the above, Dr. Luther distinguishes the primary texts of the first three chief parts as uniquely fundamental and foundational, and as the minimum that any Christian ought to know, including those "common people" who are already receiving the Sacrament of the Altar. These texts are to be read and recited daily, prayed and confessed morning, noon and night. A refusal to learn them in this fashion is tantamount to denying and despising the Christian faith altogether. Though these are the ABCs of the faith, they are not easily mastered — no, they are never perfectly mastered by anyone, of any age, in this life on earth — but they are the touchstone of ongoing, daily and lifelong catechesis for each and every Christian. They are an especially deep well, because all of Holy Scripture is summarized in these three chief parts; yet, they are also prayed and confessed by even the very young children.
　
In addition to these first three chief parts, the primary texts of the Sacraments should properly be learned, as well. And all of these things should be the object of preaching and teaching on a regular basis. To this end, Dr. Luther offers his Smaller and Larger Catechisms as means of assistance. The Psalms and Hymns of the Church also contribute to increased knowledge and understanding of all these things. So that Christians of every age are always growing from and into these chief parts of the Christian faith and life.

Let the Little Child So Examine Herself

What is a pastor to do, when one of the baptized faithful looks him in the eye and asks to be given the Body and Blood of Christ? One who is pious and sincere, a devout believer, ongoingly catechized in the chief parts of the Christian faith, a lover of Christ Jesus, adoring of His Passion, regularly in church, not living an immoral or scandalous life, not propounding false doctrine, and not belonging to any other confession or communion than that of our own congregation and fellowship. One who happens to be three years old.

Yes, I know, let a man so examine himself, and so partake of the Sacrament. But what does this mean for us? And what does that look like, per se? Must it be and look the same in each case? Or does this self-examination belong to the propria of each particular communicant? Does it require that, without the assistance of parents and pastors, an individual must know certain texts by heart and be able to recite them, cognitively comprehend the grammar and syntax of them, and discuss them intellectually? Is self-examination an internal matter of the heart, or a matter of public confession, or both, or neither?

When St. Paul admonishes the Church to let a man so examine himself, the holy Apostle addresses, specifically, the case of those communicants who were failing to discern and distinguish the Body and Blood of Christ from ordinary food; and who, so failing in that discernment of the sacramental Body, were making distinctions between the members of the Body of Christ, in the way that ordinary food may be distinguished according to class and kind. That failure strikes me, not as a lack of rational knowledge, but as a lack of reverence before God and a corresponding lack of courtesy toward the brother and sister in Christ. It is a failure of faith and love, not of inadequate memory work.

However, I am not here contemplating the prospect of "infant communion." I'm considering the case of a three-year-old who does have a rational knowledge of Christ and His Word, and who does verbally confess the faith in which she has been baptized and in which she continues to be catechized. She may not know all the vocabulary words, but she knows her own need, and she knows her dear Savior. She knows and loves Jesus for who He is and for what He has done for her. She also knows what the Sacrament is, and that it is a good and blessed gift, and that she desires to receive it from her pastor as from Christ, her Good Shepherd, Himself.

Should she simply be confirmed and be done with that? In my opinion, no; although I am not nearly so hung up on the why, when and wherefore of the man-made rite of confirmation as I am concerned with the catechesis of the Word of God and the actual administration of the Holy Communion. Catechesis is, or ought to be, an ongoing and lifelong activity for every Christian. Discipleship is a way of life, a living and walking in the way of Christ, not a plateau that is reached at some particular point, whether early or late. The baptized continue to grow and mature in the faith and knowledge of Christ Jesus, unto life everlasting. Therefore, I resist the notion that "confirmation" should be treated as an arrival at some threshold of Christian achievement. It is a public confession of the faith, and an adult assertion of one's place vis-a-vis the church and the world. If I had my druthers, as I have mentioned elsewhere in the past, the rite of confirmation would be reserved until the verge of adulthood, whether at 18 or 21, at the point of going off to college or getting married. But, in any case, I think that has little to do with readiness or worthiness for the Holy Communion.

The self-examination with which a person is to approach the Holy Communion, I believe, does not derive from one's cognitive abilities, capacities or knowledge, but is a matter of the Word of God having it's way with the Christian: the Law of God that kills the sinner, and the Gospel that raises the dead to newness of life in Christ through the forgiveness of sins. Does that work of God and a Christian's self-examination happen on a cognitive level? Surely it does; not as arising out of cognition, but rather as the Word of God engages the whole person. The same self-examination occurs in the rite of Holy Baptism, and belongs to the repentant faith which defines the entire Christian life.

There is a need for discernment of the Body of Christ, both the Body that is given for us Christians to eat in the Sacrament, and that Body of Christ which comprises the members of His Church. These things go together. But what is the nature and expression of discernment? Is it not demonstrated in a desire for the Body of Christ and in the innocence of a little child who does not discriminate against the members of the Church? Or what is it that we would otherwise be looking for, exactly? I am far less concerned that any of my little three-year-old parishioners will despise or shun their brothers and sisters in Christ, than I sometimes am in the case of adults. And I am certainly no more inclined to question the sincerity and truth of a little child's confession of the Body and Blood of Christ, than I ever am in the case of an older child or adult who is able to recite the blessed words of the Small Catechism.

What I am pressing for is a new way of thinking about and implementing the criteria for admittance to the Holy Communion. I'm not advocating less catechesis, but ultimately more; only not as a completed pre-requisite before receiving the Sacrament, but as an ongoing context within which a person receives the Sacrament. Nor am I suggesting that self-examination and public confession be done away with, but that self-examination and public confession be assisted by those entrusted with the care and catechesis of the communicant, and that examination and confession be undertaken in ways congruent with the communicant's personal capacities.

The three-year-old who looked me in the eye and asked me to give her the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus has been baptized. She has been and continues to be catechized in the Word of God. She knows and prays the Our Father with her family and her congregation. She knows and confesses the Creed with her family and her congregation. She knows that she has needs and hungers, frailties and weaknesses; that she does things she should not, and fails to do things she should; and that her dear Father in heaven loves her, forgives her, and graciously provides for her through parents and pastors and others in her life. She knows who Jesus is, and that He is her Savior; that He died for her and rose again; and that He is the One whom the Church is all about. She knows that the Sacrament of the Altar is the Body and Blood of that same Lord Jesus Christ, whom she loves, and she desires to receive at His Word what He gives.

Though it broke my heart, I did not commune her when she asked again most recently (it was certainly not the first time). But as I have continued to reflect upon her request, and to consider her faith and her confession, I am more and more inclined to say, let the little child so examine herself, and so partake of the Sacrament. Indeed, I am constrained by another Word of the Lord that seems increasingly pertinent: Let the little children come to Me, and do not hinder them; for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Proposed Pastoral Practice regarding Confirmation and First Communion

[The following is a proposal that I have been making to our board of elders regarding the practice of confirmation and first communion here at Messiah. I would welcome your comments and suggestions. -Peperkorn]

A Proposed Practice Regarding First Communion and Confirmation of children at Messiah Lutheran Church

By Pastor Todd A. Peperkorn

December 18, 2008

Proposed pastoral practice regarding First Communion:

That Messiah Lutheran Church admit children to Holy Communion when the pastor, the child, the parents and at least one elder all concur that the child is prepared to receive Christ’s Body and Blood in Holy Communion. “Preparation” shall include but not be limited to a clear confession of faith in the Gospel by means of reciting by heart the Ten Commandments, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, by being examined and absolved by the pastor (Individual Confession and Absolution), and by verbally expressing their desire to receive Christ’s Body and Blood for the forgiveness of sins.

Proposed pastoral practice regarding Confirmation:

That Messiah Lutheran Church confirm those children in the Christian Faith who can recite by heart the Small Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther with Explanation, who have been examined and absolved, and who are able to confess the faith and answer the questions placed upon confirmands in the Rite of Confirmation found in the Lutheran Service Book.

Rationale

The reason for this proposed practice is simple: It is of great benefit for all Christians to receive Christ’s Body and Blood, and that we should be about giving our children Jesus as much as possible, and as soon as possible.


The challenges for this proposed policy are several:

1) By separating confirmation and first communion, we run the risk of denigrating the importance of the rite of confirmation.

2) This practice, while gaining acceptance in the LCMS as a whole, is not universally accepted, and does require explanation.

3) Because this is based on the confession of faith of the individual and not an arbitrary age, it makes the practice appear random, when in fact this is more consistent with our understanding of worthiness of receiving the Sacrament.

Quotations From the Book of Concord

6 Confirmation and extreme unction are rites received from the Fathers that not even the Church requires as necessary to salvation, because they do not have God’s command. Therefore, it is useful to distinguish these rites from the former, which have God’s direct command and a clear promise of grace.

Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions, Edited by Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 185.

38 We cheerfully maintain the old traditions made in the Church for the sake of usefulness and peace. We interpret them in a more moderate way and reject the opinion that holds they justify. 39 Our enemies falsely accuse us of setting aside good ordinances and Church discipline. We can truly declare that the public form of the churches is more fitting with us than with the adversaries. 40 If anyone will consider it in the right way, we conform to the canons more closely than the adversaries. Among the adversaries, unwilling celebrants, and those hired for pay, and very frequently only for pay, celebrate the Masses. They sing psalms, not that they may learn or pray, but for the sake of the service (as though this work were a service) or, at least, for the sake of reward. Among us many use the Lord’s Supper every Lord’s Day. They do so after they have been first instructed, examined, and absolved. The children sing psalms in order that they may learn. The people also sing so that they may either learn or pray. 41 Among the adversaries there is no catechizing of the children whatever, about which even the canons give commands. Among us the pastors and ministers of the churches are encouraged publicly to instruct and hear the youth. This ceremony produces the best fruit. 42 Among the adversaries, in many regions, no sermons are delivered during the entire year, except during Lent. Yet the chief service of God is to preach the Gospel. When the adversaries do preach, they speak of human traditions, of the worship of saints and similar trifles, which the people justly hate. Therefore, they are immediately deserted in the beginning, after the reading of the Gospel text. A few better ones begin now to speak of good works; but about the righteousness of faith, faith in Christ, and the comfort of consciences, they say nothing. Indeed, this most wholesome part of the Gospel they rail at with their reproaches. 43 On the contrary, in our churches all the sermons are filled with such topics as these: repentance; the fear of God; faith in Christ, the righteousness of faith, the comfort of consciences by faith; the exercises of faith; prayer, what its nature should be, and that we should be fully confident that it is powerful, that it is heard; the cross; the authority of officials and all civil ordinances; the distinction between the kingdom of Christ, or the spiritual kingdom, and political affairs; marriage; the education and instruction of children; chastity; all the offices of love. 44 From this condition of the churches it may be determined that we earnestly keep Church discipline, godly ceremonies, and good Church customs.

Concordia : The Lutheran Confessions, Edited by Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 193.