Deacon Latif Haki Gaba, whose blog I enjoy reading because he heavily researches ancient traditions, recently wrote a post on The Sanctuary Lamp. Unfortunately he also includes some prescriptions that do not serve the Gospel.
In many church sanctuaries, a single candle is constantly lit. I was instructed that the candle served as a reminder of God’s presence in that particular holy place. I was also told recently of a second meaning: that the Lord’s Supper is served there. Both are salutary interpretations.
The Roman Catholic Church, Deacon Gaba tells us, lights the candle when there are consecrated leftovers of the Lord’s Supper and extinguishes it when there are not leftovers. Where there are no consecrated elements, there is no Jesus, the tradition says. Deacon Gaba says we should adopt this interpretation and this practice with the candle. I disagree.
Zion's sanctuary during LSB workshop -- candle at top.
The sanctuary lamp is not the only tradition co-opted from people a church disagrees with to form into a salutary practice. The term Easter comes from the goddess Ēostre of Anglo-Saxon paganism.
The importance of a symbol is not the symbol itself but what you teach with the symbol. Here is where my objection is stronger.
The Roman Catholic Church treasures the unconsumed hosts and wine because they teach that the elements have been transubstantiated, or transformed. The elements are parts of God and should themselves be adored, worshiped, etc.
We Lutherans are very careful to say what the Bible says and to not say what the Bible does not say. Not only does Christ say, “This is my body” and “This is my blood of the new covenant”, he also says “Take, eat”, and “Drink of it, all of you”. He does not say that we should save some back, so that we can parade it around on Corpus Christi Day, use it to fight vampires as some movies suggest, keep it in a monstrance and worship it, or some other activity that has nothing to do with the preaching of the forgiveness of sins.
Some speculate when the bread and wine is first to be understood as body and blood and if/when after the Lord’s Supper should it be considered no longer bread and wine. The Bible offers no answer. Jesus just says, “is”. Not “has become.” Not “is now“. And not in a metaphysical Calvinist/Zwinglian way either. That much I think the Deacon and I can agree on. 
I am not a big fan of reserving some of the host after a Lord’s Supper because it introduces a whole set of Law that’s not Biblically founded: how we treat the Lord’s body and blood after a meal. Should we throw it away or burn it? Shall we pour it down the sink or on the ground? Christians, set yourselves free from this law — Eat it! Drink it! Was communion made for man, or was man for communion?
I know some pastors who keep some back and serve it to hospital patients. They want their parishioners to take part in the communion of the congregation. I appreciate that sentiment. If I’m in a hospital, though, I want the Words of Institution said, even if the host was used in Divine Service. Please, Pastor, tell me that body was given for me and that blood was shed for me, for the forgiveness of sins. I don’t think Jesus would mind.
If you have leftovers, give me a call. I can help fix that.
My church has a tabernacle. I feel weird about genuflecting, but many parishioners do it because of the “leftovers”. I love my church, and I would never say that they are “too catholic”… but this is one area I wouldn’t mind seeing changed. Let’s eat it. If there are too many “leftovers”, ask for help. I haven’t yet got used to the idea that God is there, in the cabinet on the wall. If I could see him, I’d prostrate myself. Forget genuflecting.
There are some practices that we should not avoid adopting for fear of being “too catholic”: genuflecting, having crucifixes, touching the water of the baptismal font as one enters the sanctuary, private confession and absolution, etc. Taught rightly, they remind us of our salvation in Christ, given to us by him, “without any merit or worthiness in us.”
Well said Dan. Eat it! Drink it! That’s why it was given, and to use a gift other than as it was given is to turn it into something other than a gift. If we just ate it we wouldn’t find ourselves with so many peculiar questions or opportunities to run in the way of the law!
“I haven’t yet got used to the idea that God is there, in the cabinet on the wall. If I could see him, I’d prostrate myself. Forget genuflecting.”
Really? I assume you’re OK with the idea that He’s in, with, and under bread and wine though? I can’t see Him in the Sacrament period.
In any case, I agree that the best practice is always to consume everything to avoid vain speculations. I tend to think that discussion of the duration of the Sacramental union past the end of the Divine Service is speculation, regardless of whether you think it remains or does not. This is why I favor consumption and avoiding using a tabernacle for reservation in the chancel area. I would probably also not favor reviving the use of the tabernacle lamp as contemporary Roman and Anglo Catholics use it to indicate the presence of the consecrated hosts and wine. On the other hand, regardless of whether you think Christ’s bodily presence remains in a local way in, with, and under the bread and wine, the consecrated elements are worthy of being treated with special care due to their previous union with our Lord’s Body and Blood. Therefore, I see nothing against the Gospel in lighting a lamp to indicate the presence of consecrated elements if for some extraordinary reason there were left-overs (I’m on the altar guild in a down town urban church and it is simply impossible to accurately gauge the number of hosts needed due to frequent LCMS visitors. Hence there are often leftovers). Moveover, since I do not think it a problem that contemporary Americans will fall into idolatry of consecrated hosts (our difficulty tends to be in the direction of disbelieving the Real Presence), inculcating an understanding that something very real has happened in connection with the bread and wine is not a bad idea. In any case though, I can certainly see why many are wary of the idea given past abuses. I just don’t think contemporary abuses are in that direction. But, again, I certainly wouldn’t campaign to start using the sanctuary lamp in that way and would oppose it unless it was introduced with extensive catechisis to prevent misunderstandings. I figure it’s always best to consume everything.
Best,
Bethany
Excellent post for many reasons.
I have no problem with reserving what remains–we are told at the feeding of the 5,000 that the disciples gathered what was left–but I prefer to consume what was left. Nevertheless, when I served a congregation where the senior pastor said that the leftover was saved and set apart, I always said the Words of Institution when taking that to shut-ins. It didn’t make it MORE Jesus, but I certainly didn’t want the shut-in to doubt that Christ was truly present because I neglected to speak the words.
Whereas the Roman Catholic Church believes and teaches a doctrine of Transubstantiation, Dan, we, believe the bread and wine undergo sacramental union (and Luther was adamant that we not explain it with a term). Yes, they believe that the transformation means there is no more bread and no more wine – but we just know that before Jesus was not there and now he says, “This is my body.” How does that happen? That is not for us to know right now. That is what Luther argued with Zwingli about. Many a Lutheran have been taught that perhaps a greater miracle would be needed to end the sacramental union (almost in the same manner of “what God has joined together, let no man separate). So we must be careful about how we speak of the “left-overs.”
With that said, week in and week out, previously consecrated bread (and sometimes wine) from the previous Sunday’s Divine Service are used on our altar at Zion here in Fort Wayne. And the Words of our Lord are always spoken over them again. They are kept separate from the common bread, but still placed on the altar (in their own pix). It is the practice of the pastors here to always speak those words to shut-ins and hospital calls.
With all that said, I agree with you in the sense that if we consume it all, there is no doubt about anything. He said eat it, and if we eat it, we can’t argue about whether or not it is the body after the benediction or not. I find no reason to “reserve” anything. And I find that most Lutherans believe what you believe about the Lamp. I’ve even heard people call it the Holy Spirit candle…because God is here.
Thanks for the post!
Frankly, IMO, the dude you mentioned is in love with Rome, like in Roma-philia.
LPC
Dear Dan,
I have lately become aware of your post on this topic. Thank you for reading my blog. As a brother, I must, however, correct your evident misreading of my blog, and of my position on things.
1. You say that my blog on the sanctuary lamp has “prescriptions that do not serve the Gospel.” I am quite unaware of what those might be. Please specify what I have prescribed, which does not serve the Gospel, and how it fails to serve the Gospel.
2. You say that you were instructed that the candle serves as a reminder of God’s presence in that holy place. Whoever taught you this was right. For this is its very purpose, except that we need to state it more clearly. Namely, the candle indicates that God is Personally present, that is, in the person of Christ, in the Blessed Sacrament, reserved in that holy place.
You say that you were lately told of a second meaning, that the Lord’s Supper is served there. I do not know about this, so I can’t comment on it.
3. You say that I claim that “the Roman Catholic Church lights the candle when there are consecrated leftovers of the Lord’s Supper, and extinguishes it when there are not leftovers.” This claim of yours is wrong in several ways. For I would have said no such thing, for several reasons. First, I never mentioned the Roman Catholic Church. Second, I would have never referred to the sacred reliquiae with a vulgar term like “leftovers.” Third, it is simply not true (nor did I claim) that the RC Church lights the candle when the consecrated elements are present, and that she extinguishes it when they are not present. That makes it sound like in the RC Church there are sanctuary lamps being lit and then extinguished on a regular basis. Rather, in Roman Catholic as well as many Lutheran churches, the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle on an ongoing basis, and so the sanctuary lamp is always lit.
4. You say, that “the tradition” says that where there are no consecrated elements, there is no Jesus. I would never say that. Nor do I believe it.
5. You then say that I said we should adopt this interpretation and practice. Of course that is untrue as well. You are disagreeing with a weird straw man.
6. You say that the symbol is not important in itself, but what is important is what we make of it. That is silly talk. Symbols always bear with them something of the meaning of that which they symbolize.
7. It is not that I suggest we adopt the traditional interpretation of the lamp. It is, rather, that it has one objective meaning, and I am merely suggesting that we conform our practice to be consistent with it. That is, either reserve the Sacrament, which is what the lamp signifies, or do not use the lamp.
8. Surely part of what makes this whole discussion unpalatable to you, however, in other words, part of what seems to be behind our not being on the same page, is the issue of what the reliquiae are. Are they the Body and Blood of Christ? Or are they merely bread? You have been woefully misled, and misguided, Dan. That became evident to me when you made a comment several months ago at another blog, in which you boldly made a statement which was deeply offensive, namely, that it would be appropriate to dispose of a dropped particle found in the chancel after the Divine Service by means of a “dust buster.” I do recommend to you that you study and ponder the issue, and one good article on the topic can be found at the following site:
http://www.reformationtoday.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/tomixornottomix.pdf
I look forward to further conversation on the issue.
Deacon Gaba,
Thank you for your reply and clarifications. I had hoped you would reply before the blog automatically shuts off comments to limit spam, but I knew you had been extremely busy. Thank you also for numbering your points, and I will number my responses to correspond.
1. By “prescriptions that do not serve the Gospel” I am talking about practices which do not have scriptural backing and draw attention to the objects of the practice rather than the Gospel. The lamp, you suggest, demands a change in behavior depending whether it is on or not — come and adore the Sacrament. The house of God should be a holy and revered place whether or not there are reliquae.
2, I have no problems with.
3. Upon further review of your article, I see that you’re correct, that you did not mention the RCC. The 35 comments that followed your article did, and I conflated the two.
I apologize since the term “leftovers” offends you. I was not despising the body of Christ itself but its use other than what Christ prescribed. Forgive me.
Thank you for your clarification regarding the ongoing presence of the reliquae in the tabernacle.
4. and 5. have to do with the last part of 3., where I had misinterpreted that the candle would be going on and off.
6. I was not being silly when I said, “The importance of a symbol is not the symbol itself but what you teach with the symbol.” Whether you light a candle, hold a banner saying “We have the body of Christ in our tabernacle”, or some other device, that’s not as important as the reservation of the reliquae. Surely you would agree on this?
7. Symbols often have more than one meaning. The “Stars and Bars” flag of the Confederacy and the swastika, for instance. When you say that a candle lit in a sanctuary has “one objective meaning,” then it is implied that you and I subscribe to some authority that says the sanctuary lamp represents that you have reliquae in the tabernacle. Is this in Scripture anywhere? Is it in the Lutheran confessions anywhere? My Google search “did not match any documents.” I will humbly bend the knee to the Word of God and our correct and faithful exposition to the Scripture, the Book of Concord. That is not sarcasm. I am ever a student.
8. Your statement assumes facts not in evidence and is worth a reminder to reread the original post above. I do not doubt, God help me, that the bread and the wine are the body and blood of Christ. I do not know when and if it starts and it stops being body and blood. I do not subscribe to receptionism. With this bread and wine I receive forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation.
The Dustbuster comment I made illustrated the stress you put yourself under. I was not calling the bread dirt. Surely there are microscopic crumbs that lodge in the carpet that you can’t get by hand. Would you propose we kneel, stand, or trample on particles of the reliquae? I can’t imagine that would be palatable to you either.
Our Lord says take and eat; take and drink. Not take and reserve. Are pastors in such a hurry that they must maintain an emergency consecrated host to give people in the hospital? What difference is the forgiveness of sins, life and salvation consecrated in a hospital room versus on the altar?
Reservation, which is really where I am at odds here, invites too much abuse. Reliquae has been stolen. It has been the object of laws, made by man with our concept of what is reverent, that would not be necessary if everything were consumed.
I had a classmate in seminary who called sanctuary lamps, Romischer Lichte. I originally laughed, but I tend to agree with him now. I don’t think that this is a practice that needs to be borrowed from Rome.
I agree with Luther that the best practice is to leave no reliquae.
Well said, Dan. Excellent corrective to the errors propagated in Gaba’s post.
The fallacy of his argument is that somehow we Lutherans are unable to assume an erroneous Roman Catholic practice, and give it a good and wholesome Gospel centered meaning.
The sanctuary lamp can easily be used to symbolize the truth of John 1, that Christ is the light of the world, the light no darkness can overcome.
If however there is a church using it to try to signal that they have shut Jesus up in a box somewhere, then I would say it should be removed.
The Lutheran Confessions, and Holy Scripture, absolutely do not support the reservation of the host, no matter how well intended, intentioned or otherwise.
It is simply foolishness to suggest otherwise.
Dan wrote:
I know some pastors who keep some back and serve it to hospital patients. They want their parishioners to take part in the communion of the congregation. I appreciate that sentiment. If I’m in a hospital, though, I want the Words of Institution said, even if the host was used in Divine Service. Please, Pastor, tell me that body was given for me and that blood was shed for me, for the forgiveness of sins. I don’t think Jesus would mind.
I personally know it is a good thing to take the sacrament from the Sunday Mass (Divine Service) to the hospital, nursing homes, shut-ins, etc. When doing so I have always in the past made sure to use words that go a little something like this:
“N, the sacrament that you are about to receive was consecrated during our Sunday morning service, and in so doing, I used these words…(here follows a restating (but not a reconsecrating of the elements) of the verba).”
So, one can have the “best of both worlds” (no pun intended).
It is good for those unable to make it to Mass not only to be in communion with God and the Church (via the sacrament), but also to have something tangible (like the reserved sacrament from the community they are no longer able to physically be with) to tie them to their community.
I have heard the argument stated so many times that people need to hear the verba. That is fine; the option above allows for that. But if one finds it confusing or conflicting to have the verba repeated in the presence of the sacrament (as if the incantation was going to re-consecrate it no matter what the intention was
) then don’t appropriate words of distrubition accomplish what you would “hope” to hear, ie., “The body of Christ given for you…The blood of Christ shed for you for the forgiveness of sins”? The dramatic element is lost but the theology and pastoral intent of the sacrament are not.
Bryce, since you dumped your ordination as a Lutheran pastor and hitched your star to the Anglican communion, growing ever more increasingly apostate, I really don’t think you have much to offer a Lutheran blog conversation.
Paul,
The fact that you repeatedly make the assumption that only people who are members of a Lutheran Church can contribute to Lutheran Theology is parochial in the worst sense of the word.
Good post, Dan, and well within the mainstream of the Lutheran tradition.
I would tweak the comment on “symbol” slightly. In a “symbol” we run the meaning. A symbol stands for whatever we say it stands for, and we are free to redefine the symbol provided the definition sticks. The tabernacle light can be redefined as an “eternal light,” though in the presence of a tabernacle that will be difficult to sustain.
With regard to the reservation of the remaining elements, I concur completely. They should be eaten and drunk, as Luther himself suggested. Reservation only invites speculation that is not profitable. It is noteworthy in this regard that no remnants of the Passover were to remain until the next day.
I think the issues of the reserved elements and the lamp, while related, are not the same and are being confused here.
Reservation of the elements is among those practices Luther once described as even if having an original good intention have long since obscured that intention. The idea is to reverence the miracle of the Eucharist. Which is fine, but, part of that miracle is the words Take and eat, Take and drink, not Take and reverence, Take and eat and drink later, Take and don’t eat or drink, or anything of the sort. Indeed, leads to speculation that is not profitable.
OTOH, the sanctuary lamp is not a Roman thing, but derives but the lamp and showbread in the Temple, and survives to this day in the lamp by the reserved Torah scroll in the Synagogue, and the lamp by the tabernacle in the church, considered to honour Jesus having replaced the Law as the physical presence of Jesus replaces the scroll of the Law. There is no meaning to the sanctuary lamp other than that. It is part of the very thing that reservation of the elements is. If there is no reservation, there is no lamp that is its sign.
Years back, I used to go to a meeting in a Lutheran church and passed by the sanctuary on the way, where they had such a lamp, but no tabernacle. I thought at the time, how typical, keep the symbol, reject what it symbolises, and kept on walking by Lutheranism itself as one more way that people try to pick and choose from things of the Catholic Church they don’t understand but like and reinvent the rest with some “reformer’s” ideas. Or engage in cultural autism where things mean what I say they mean, rather than learn to mean by them what they are taken to mean.
Dear Dan:
It seems that I remember your “dust buster” comment better than you remember it. It was not a comment about cleaning the carpet of microscopic particles, so that we do not trample Christ. It was clearly a comment about noticeable “crumbs.” Furthermore, that comment makes unmistakable the notion that after the liturgy the “word” is no longer attached to the bread, rendering it no longer “Sacrament,” which would make such treatment of the the Sacred Species appropriate. Let me refresh your memory by providing the pertinent part of your comment:
“This reminds me of the discussions about cleaning up crumbs or spilled wine. Some are offended by the use of a vacuum cleaner, for example.
Knowing that a sacrament is word and component, at some point you have to figure the spoken word isn’t there any more. It would be highly disrespectful to break out the Dustbuster(TM) during Distribution. After the service and everyone has left? A crumb-less carpet the next service is also a sign of respect.”
You now say that you believe the bread to be the Body of Christ, and that you are concerned merely about inviting abuse. Surely one abuse of the Sacrament would be to vacuum it up with a “dust buster.”
One of the possible abuses you mention is that it be stolen. Far more likely, and surely has happened more often, than the reserved Sacrament being stolen, is that the Sacrament be stolen during Communion by someone taking the Body of Christ by the hand, and walking off with It.
You also say that another abuse invited by reserving the Sacrament is the making of laws defining reverent behavior. I do not know of these laws. Please explicate. What you seem to be suggesting here is that practices such as kneeling and genuflecting are “in the way of the law.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The worship of Christ, with not only our heart, and intellect, but also our body, is pure eucharistia. It behooves you to prove otherwise.
>> at some point you have to figure the spoken word isn’t there any more
Hmmm…. I didn’t realize God’s Word came with an expiration date.
Deacon, this is pretty classic, as you’re using a quote I made some time ago to deflect from the valid and current question of the “one objective meaning” of the sacramental lamp. I would have thought such a scholar could provide a source. I will consider my point made. Thank you.
Now I’m going to do something you needed to do and haven’t, which is to be charitable to the opposition and admit when I may be wrong. I’m going to admit that my thinking has changed somewhat since that discussion, though with no thanks to you and no effort by you to inform what is going on. Rather, you are satisfied to say that I despise the Lord’s Supper and to slam pastors who have catechized me. This is not a way to win friends to your cause.
Let me ask you a couple of things:
1. What difference in behavior would you expect from a parishioner who saw the sanctuary lamp lit and understood it as an indicator that reliquae was reserved, vs. from a parishioner who understood the lamp in a John 8, light of the world, sense?
2. Since you are quite focused on the “Dust Buster” comment, what you would do in that particular case, knowing that you cannot possibly collect all of the reliquae off of the floor by hand? Either you are going to have to call it “good enough,” asking forgiveness for what remains and clean it up with something so that people don’t step on reliquae (and thus burden their consciences), or you’re going to spiral down into a guilt trip. Over forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation!
I stopped reading as soon as you mentioned that the name Easter comes from Pagan sources.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/bytopic/holidays/easterborrowedholiday.html?start=1
Bummer. You missed a good discussion. Thanks for the link.
I actually did read the rest. I was just trying to be a bit over-dramatic in making my point.
It is a good discussion (for the most part), though much of what has been said here has been said before in other places. I know what my opinion on the matter is, and that’s good enough. I’ll leave it to others to debate the details on this one.
Actually the rules for when one genuflects or double genuflects are quite well defined.
More Romanism we can happily leave behind. Or else, go whole hog and do like Vatican II Roman churches, where people genuflect to where the host used to be reserved on the tabernacle and not where it is now reserved on the “altar of repose” if not in a different room altogether, so as not to interfere with the place of assembly for the People of God or whatever.
As to Easter, the name, not the feast. was certainly derived from pagan observances in Germanic languages, unlike other European languages which derive their terms from Passover. I most humbly suggest my annual Easter post on this.
Terry,
Did you read the article that I posted that contradicts the belief that the name of Easter comes from pagan origins? I’d be curious to hear your take on this person’s research considering you seem to be quite convinced in your position.
Dan:
You say I’m using a statement of yours from “some time ago to deflect from the valid and current question” regarding the singular meaning of the sanctuary lamp. You actually call it a “sacramental lamp,” which seems odd for someone with your viewpoint. And you say you “would have thought such a scholar could provide a source.”
The comment you made last year on the world wide web is still relevant because it pertains to a serious and public aspect of the life of the Church, namely the administration and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament, and because it has in no way been recanted, as far as I am aware. Some of your words in this discussion seem to indicate, or imply, that you have changed your view since the “dust buster” comment, and I have granted that. Yet many other statements you have made in the past few days in this very discussion contradict the notion that you have changed your view.
Now my part in this conversation has not been uncharitable. Rather, it has been respectful, yet pointed, for you and I are adult Christian men, capable of reasoned discussion, especially since this is not about something frivolous, such as football, whether Michael Jackson should have a national holiday (he should, by the way -just kidding), whether gothic or Roman chasubles are better, etc. This, rather, is about the “what” of the Sacrament of the Altar, and about how to handle it. It doesn’t get any more important than that. Therefore I have been objective, and pointed, yet reasoned and dispassioned, so please resist the temptation to read some tone, or uncharitableness in me. No one, for example, has accused you of “despising the Sacrament.”
Let us remember, Dan, that charity is the friend of truth and clarity, not their opponent.
Now, about your claim that I am trying to deflect from a question about the purpose of the sanctuary lamp, I do not recall you asking such a question. I recall you making the claim, repeatedly, that there are several valid meanings for the lamp. For my part, I have made the opposite claim, namely, that the eucharistic and the noneucharistic meanings are kind of contradictory, that in fact the noneucharistic use of the lamp in many churches serves only to deceive some people. (In fact, I don’t see how the noneucharistic use of the lamp can be very useful to many Lutherans anyway, since most of those churches are closed during the week, the lamp being seen maybe by the organist who comes in to practice, and not many others.) And by the way, it strikes me that while you object to my claim that there is “one” meaning for the lamp, let us not overlook the fact that you condemn the practice attached to the one use I advocate, which means that you also are really arguing for exactly “one” meaning, just a different one than the traditional one. I wonder, then, if you are able to cite a source for your view.
This very conversation, both here, and at my blog, has had the valuable contribution of Past Elder, who has made the point about the Old Testament connection to this sacramental practice. Of course for my part I could cite sources to back up the eucharistic meaning of the lamp. Why I haven’t is because such an ancient and universal custom, especially in the West, seems to stand on its own (that is, citations in a case like this would strike me as not really “sources,” just additional potentially helpful voices), whereas those who want to reinvent it are the ones, if any, who would seem to bear the burden of proof.
You say your thinking has changed. But as a brother, I want to prod you to be more specific. Ie., just how has it changed? Eg., do you no longer put a time limit on our Lord’s promise to be present in the Blessed Sacrament? If so, wonderful, but it would seem to beg the question as to why you objected above to the idea of the Body of Christ being “worshipped, adored, et.”
By the way, I rather hope you have read Father Beisel’s paper, which I recommended. If so, or when you get the time to do so, please share your reactions.
Also, brother, I hope you have kept up with the discussion as it is simultaneously going on at gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com. I suppose I assumed you were. To be sure, I, and others, have made some points there as well, which you might consider.
You ask: “What difference in behavior would you expect from a parishioner who saw the sanctuary lamp lit and understood it as an indicator that reliquae was reserved, vs. from a parishioner who understood the lamp in a John 8, light of the world, sense?”
This question seems to assume that I “expect” a certain behavior from people. Now that is an unnecessary going in the way of the law.
Finally, you ask: “Since you are quite focused on the “Dust Buster” comment, what you would do in that particular case, knowing that you cannot possibly collect all of the reliquae off of the floor by hand?”
Before I can answer you, I must ask you what “case” you have in mind. That is, is it the case of a particle that has dropped, or is it the case of cleaning up the straw men of microscopic particles, that is often brought up by those who make fun of the traditional rubrics? The answer will differ accordingly.
Re: “sacramental lamp”: You’re a more careful reader than I am. I was writing that with two kids wanting me to read a book to them.
Of course I meant sanctuary lamp.
I understand what you are concerned about, whether you are cleaning up elements from the Lord’s table or reserving them in a tabernacle. But I find a parallel between God’s institution of the Sabbath and God’s institution of the Lord’s Supper, where a gift that the Lord has given to us has been tarnished by men crushing people’s consciences with rules that take the focus off the gift.
Through this discussion of the reliquae it sounds like we are more concerned with what to do with this Jesus in the reliquae than what Jesus has given this sacrament for. It is precisely because I believe what it is, that I would ask that it would be used for what it was instituted.
Having just received your next note about the less than charitable comments by Rev. McCain and L.P. Cruz, I concur that they were less than charitable. I do think that Bryan Wandrey could have prehaps provided a little more disclosure so that we could have better understood his viewpoint.
At the writing of this comment I’m looking at Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, on the Holy Supper, paragraphs 61-62 and 83-85. In 61 and 62, I’m reading that one of the two ways we eat the flesh of Christ is to hear the Word and firmly rely on that Word with confidence and trust. 83 tells us that there is no sacrament if the entire action of the sacrament is not performed. Then 85 gives us the rule that, “Nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ.”
So, the question is, is there no Word of God and is there no sacrament when reliquae is kept in a tabernacle? There seems to be reasonable doubt, but again, I am ever the student. This would allow us some relief in the event that reliquae is stolen, in that Jesus’s body would not be appropriated for a purpose other than what he intended. Now, if there is evidence to the contrary, please let me know, so that I may not be labeled a Cessationist either.
Now, I did read your blog’s comments, especially the hospital chaplain who gave consecrated elements and prayed that the recipient may recognize it as body and blood, for the forgiveness of sins. I am encouraged that consecrated elements are not just given and the pastor thinks he’s done his job.
It seems to me the elephant in the room is what happens in the time between the close of the Divine Service, during which reliquae is kept in the tabernacle, and the time the reliquae is used in another Divine Service or given to a hospital patient. Do people who identify the sanctuary lamp as an indicator of the presence of reliquae come in and offer some kind of worship to what is in the tabernacle?
Do we worship the water in the baptismal font, though it is connected with God’s Word in Baptism? It would be nice if, along with, “For without the word of God the water is simple water and no baptism,” we also had, “For without the word of God, the bread and wine is simple bread and wine and no body and blood.”
Dan wrote: I do think that Bryan Wandrey could have prehaps provided a little more disclosure so that we could have understood his viewpoint.
Sorry, I thought I was pretty well a “known entity” at this point.
Not to my audience. Forgiven.
Cheers!
I should note that the viewpoint I expressed above is the exact same one that I expressed and employed while a Lutheran pastor. Not sure if that helps or not.
Lord have mercy — spent 10 years in the Catholic church. Saw it all. Tabernacles, lamps, monstrances, Corpus Christi processions and perpetual adoration.
Also saw parishioners who don’t bother to genuflect before entering the pew (when the tabernacle was smack dab in front of them), young women who should have been deeply embarrassed to appear in front of a priest, never mind the tabernacle, dressed — or rather undressed — the way they were.
The chatting and socializing that went on before and after Mass would have never led any uninformed visitors to think there was anything “special” reserved in that box.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Happens in other churches too, including the LCMS. Difference is we don’t make the claims that the RC makes about itself.
I have also been a member of Lutheran churches where the lamp was hung near the pulpit to emphasize the presence of Christ in His Word. That thing about “Christian freedom.”
Dan:
Another thought occurs to me. Given your concern that participants in this conversation be charitable to each other, I do fraternally suggest that you consider whether it is advisable to allow comments on your blog such as those of LP Cruz and Paul McCain. Also, truth be told, it is neither charitable nor truthful of you to claim that I have made prescriptions which do not serve the Gospel. I am not personally offended by any of these things, but I would call upon you to consider being more consistent regarding what you allow to take place here. Thanks.
Yes, I did read the article. Written by a lecturer in Islamic Studies at a Reformed school. Hmm. And here we Benedictines like my man Bede singlehandedly saved civilisation! The only thing suspect about him was he was one of those North of the Umber guys instead of a proper Angle like me.
OK enough fun. The name is one thing, the feast is another. I am in no way saying “easter”, as we call it in English, is simply a Christianised version of the old pagan spring festivals. It is indeed the Christian Passover. We just should have derived our name from Passover, like my other language, Spanish. (I’m Puerto Rican when not an East Anglian, and that’s when I’m not playing a rip roaring German Lutheran on the Internet; keeps ‘em on their toes in Omaha.)
And just as the feast was not derived from a pagan observance, it was not renamed for one either. July gets its name from Julius Caesar, who being an emperor and all, could rename a month after himself. It’s supposed to be Quintember or some such, the fifth month. June for Juno, August. supposed to be Sextember, for Caesar Augustus, before we get to the seventh month, September and run it out from there. That’s a whole different phenomenon.
The dude wrote his work about 730, right after the end of the forcible conversion of the locals to Christianity. Given the violence of which, it’s likely that the living memory of what went before he was around is more reliable than scholars who try to reconstruct the whole thing many centuries later with the Urim and Thummin of textual and linguistic criticism. Jacob Grimm made a pretty good case for it though, not agin it. Which also lines up with non-Germanic European languages deriving the name from Passover, not this.
This happens — wouldn’t be the first time the church took a previously existing name for something roughly like the Christian thing and applied it to the new thing. Judas H Priest, the word liturgy itself comes from the obligation of upper class pagan Athenians to the state and people as a whole, a work at their expense for the benefit of the people, the recognition of which in no way detracts from what happens in the liturgy, and in our time, if taught, reinforces that liturgy really is not just an order of service but the gift of the Body and Blood of the Lord, undertaken for our benefit at his expense, and given the name because of that.
That the word “easter” also derives from a pagan observance in no way detracts from what we call Easter — it just means we really would have been better to use something else, and in fact, many confessionals have taken to calling it Pascha much as the Eastern Church does, a much more clear name.
We certainly do not need to defend the term “easter” to defend what it signifies. (Unless of course we’re free to decide what it signifies for ourselves regardless of its significance to others who will be utterly mistaken then in understanding us — it’s fine if learning language you decide Mama for you means Dada, but Mama and Dada are going to be confused.)
I find that sort of defensiveness more typical of the Reformed than us, so the origin of the article is not surprising. Again I most humbly suggest my annual Easter post on this. You’ll also find out how we got a bunny that lays eggs.
http://pastelder.blogspot.com/2009/04/easter-eostre-pascha-counting-omer-2009.html
Dan:
I kind of like “sacramental lamp,” but being the traditionalist I am, I’ll probably keep calling it the sanctuary lamp (unless I study the matter, and conclude that there is indeed a better term).
I resisted your nomenclature of “laws” above, and I see that you now use the term “rules,” which might be a bit softer. I think, however, that it is best to simply refer to things like the “rubrics” or to certain pious liturgical and devotional “customs.” And then, as long as these practices are not taught or enforced in a legalistic manner, then there can be no charge of legalism or of “man made laws.”
Now the customs we receive from ancients times which help us to behave reverently in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, and to reverently handle the Sacrament, do not take the focus off the gift. On the contrary, they help precisely to focus our attention on the gift of our Lord in the Eucharist. Consciously forcing our body to behave differently than it does the rest of the week serves to keep the mind, and the heart, focussed on what the Sacrament is, ie., Whose presence we are in, ie., to focus on the gift, and therefore to also remind us of what He gives us when we eat His Body and drink His Blood, viz., the forgiveness of our sins. This is valuable not only because we feel the burden of our sins, or should, but also because we are then brought to mind of what comes with divine forgiveness, namely, life and salvation.
On the contrary, what takes the focus off God’s gift are man made innovations which serve to focus on the self. These include immodest and irreverent behavior, immodest dress, and modes of worship which are praised and encouraged today at the highest levels of the Synod, and every other level and arm of Synod, for that matter.
If it sounds to you like this discussion is a bit more concerned with what to do with the Eucharistic Christ reserved in our churches than about what the Sacrament is for, that is because that is indeed what this discussion is about, to a large degree. There is nothing wrong with discussing one thing, and then another. The essence, and purpose, of the Sacrament, however, are very important facets of the subject, which we should always keep in mind, and which should indeed inform what we say on this topic. You have not really seen any of us who defend the reservation of the Sacrament in a tabernacle do so for reasons other than that it serves the very essence and purpose of the Sacrament. That is, It is reserved precisely so that It may be consumed by our brethren.
You refer to the Nihil Rule in the Formula of Concord (Nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum). This rule has a long history of being read in two different ways, ie., in a Philippist way on the one hand, and in a way which conforms to Luther’s thinking on the other hand, which later became known as the “genuine Lutheran” way. Luther in using this rule wants to guard the integrity of the Sacrament, and indeed, to emphasize the true creative character of the consecration. In the hands of the Philippists, however, this rule is used to divide the sacrament up within itself. Which way should we read the FC in this regard? Not only the text of the FC, when studied closely, but also an understanding of its authors, specially its chief author, Chemntiz, as well as an understanding of the thinking and practice of Luther, supports the conclusion that it is Luther’s view (of both the Nihil Rule and of the Sacrament in general) that is being promoted in the Formula. So when the Formula speaks of abuse of the tabernacle, keep in mind it is in the same breath, and part of the same thought, as the warning against carrying the Sacrament exposed in proccessions, and that the whole point is that we ought not invent new “uses’ for the Sacrament. Reservation of the Sacrament, cannot in itself, however, be condemned as “outside the use.” For, as I say, it is done by Lutherans (and always has been) for the very purpose of its divinely instituted use, that is, that It may be consumed by the faithful.
It is truly sad and unfortunate, and an example of sloppy theology, that the Synod’s CTCR report in May of 1983 (Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper) assumes the Philippist approach to terms like “use,” etc. My hope and prayer for today’s Lutheran pastors is that they study afresh Luther, and the Confessions, apart from the all too conventional thinking of Philippism.
For the record Dan, I do not label you a cessationist. I think of you as a brother who is praying and searching. That’s what I like to see in a Lutheran man.
You ask, “Do people who identify the sanctuary lamp as an indicator of the presence of reliquae come in and offer some kind of worship to what is in the tabernacle?”
I do. And many others do as well. But it seems that concept is a bit much for you to swallow at this point, so let’s just shelve that topic for now.
You ask, “Do we worship the water in the baptismal font, though it is connected with God’s Word in Baptism?”
We do not. But we do show great reverence to it. The difference between it and the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar is that the bread is not only used for something holy, but it is itself the very Body of Christ.
In fact, Dan, the formulation you offer, “For without the word of God, the bread and wine is simple bread and wine and no body and blood,” would not only be nice, it is in fact true. But the proper place for such a statement is before the consecration, not after. After Christ speaks His creative Word, the Sacrament is what it is.
Actually the rules for when one genuflects or double genuflects are quite well defined.
Sure are. One could always tell the “old-timers” at the downtown cathedral where I used to go to daily mass. On Thursdays they would have Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in a monstrance, after the noon Mass and the pre-VII crowd would always do a double genuflection. Exposition would end with Vespers at 4:00 p.m.
What really used to amaze me was how at Communion folks would pass by the EMPTY tabernacle (when it was situated behind on on the main altar) and make a sign of reverence. Not their fault, another result of the lousy catechesis since VII. They actually didn’t realize that all the hosts had been removed for distribution and they were reverencing an empty tabernacle.
Or as Sister Maureen, OSU used to tell us — we have Jesus inside us when we receive Holy Communion, there’s no need to focus on the tabernacle anymore. Course Sister Maureen was also looking forward to the day when women would be ordained.
Ah, the brave new world of VII. My more-Catholic-than-the-pope paternal grandmother is probably turn over over in her grave!
More Romanism we can happily leave behind. Or else, go whole hog and do like Vatican II Roman churches, where people genuflect to where the host used to be reserved on the tabernacle and not where it is now reserved on the “altar of repose” if not in a different room altogether, so as not to interfere with the place of assembly for the People of God or whatever.
Yep, that’s for sure. Some of those “altars of repose” where Jesus is left all by Himself in a separate room made my hair stand on end. I wasn’t sure if I was looking at a tabernacle or a rock formation from some prehistoric geological era.
Christine
Oh, I would fall on my knees and adore the Lord continually if my parishioners would ever develop a superstition about the Presanctified in our tabernacle! I work and fight to get them past “it’s bread and wine to remember Jesus and share with one another!” For a former LCMS parish, they haven’t a clue about the Real Presence – and I have had council members tell me that I am teaching something new when I say “it is His Body and it is His Blood you are receiving.” (One council member also told me that saying Jesus bodily rose from the dead was not Lutheran – but that’s a different story.)
We reserve the Presanctified in the tabernacle – and no Jesus is not locked in a box any more than He is locked in your heart or bound to His Throne in heaven — we are not Calvinists, I hope. The Sacrament is taken from the tabernacle to commune the sick, shut-ins and for Viaticum during the week, and distributed at the Eucharist on Sunday also. We clearly follow, “Take and eat,’ “Take and drink.” No where in Scripture does our Lord say, “Take and wave.”
Is reserving the Presanctified “too Catholic,” — I don’t know, I’m not Roman Catholic and frankly, if the Pope has a cold, why must Lutherans sneeze? Having grown up in the Dutch Reformed Church, I always heard, “it’s like the Lutherans,” or “we’re not Lutheran” (BTW, Lutheran is the boogey-man for the Dutch Reformed as the RCC is for Lutherans). I don’t define red as not blue – so why define Lutheran as not RCC.
So, as long as I have to wear the scares of teaching the Real Presence and its benefits to us, as Sacramentology is really Christology for us Lutherans, I’ll reserve the Sacrament to teach that the presence is true and essential. Besides, in the northeast, no one bats an eye – and in my parish we are 2/3 former RCC and my Lutheran youth keep marrying RCC and ending up in the RCC. Reservation of the Sacrament just isn’t our battle here.
Blessed be Christ on His Throne in heaven, and in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar.
Pr. Strauch
Hamden, CT
Just one more thought Pastor Strauch and then I’ll bow out of here because I don’t want to overstay my welcome.
I suspect that your congregation is affiliated with the ELCA, probably the New England Synod since you describe your lcoation as Hamden, CT. do know something of the ELCA having once been a member there myself.
There is no doubt that pietism affected many Lutheran congregations at one time and that some LCMS congregations struggle with that and the influence of American evangelicalism. Fortuntely, my LCMS parish does not. We know and understand Who it is we receive in the Holy Supper.
But quite frankly, and it gives me no joy to say it because I still have family in the ELCA, I’d rather deal with the challenge of pietism in the LCMS than the unionism and syncretism that caused me to leave the ELCA. One can have sanctuary lamps and all the smells and bells and still be quite heterodox.
Christine
Er, for a former LCMS parish, ??
Christine
I would also humbly point out that as Lutherans we are not in communion with the Holy See — making us decidedly NOT Roman Catholic.
Christine
Pastor Strauch, as a congregation of the ELCA, your altar is joined to that which is confessed by the ELCA. Because the ELCA has declared itself to be in full communion with the United Church of Christ, which is the most anti-creedal and one could argue minimally Christian protestant denomination in the USA, if not the world, this has very serious ramifications for what your altar represents and stands for. That is a much larger concern, or should be, than anything else at this point.