Communion in both kinds (host and cup) is a staple of the Lutheran reform of the Mass. Somewhere around article twenty-two in the Augsburg Confession of 1530 you’ll find this:
Among us both kinds of the sacrament are given to the laity for the following reason. There is clear order and command of Christ in Matthew 26:27: ‘Drink from it, all of you.’ Concerning the cup Christ here commands with clear words that they all should drink from it.
Catholics got one kind, Lutherans got both. I don’t mean to suggest we Lutherans were smug about it. No, I’ll just say it straight out: We were smug. Why else call our Mass a “reform”?
Alas, all that went away in 1975 when distribution of the cup was permitted at the Catholic Mass. Since the 1500’s communion in one kind was hard lined in Roman circles, largely I suspect because Lutherans did both kinds so Catholics would not. 1975 was a real blow to Lutheran exceptionalism.
But at least on one point both of us—Lutherans and Catholic together—ignored Martin Luther completely. He proposed that altars should be turned around “so the priest could face the people as Christ undoubtedly faced the disciples.” Most of us do that now but it was another blow to Lutheran smugness that we never got around to it until Catholics started it.
Lutheran smugness may be coming back in fashion, however. The Phoenix diocese announced, based on Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted’s understanding of the new translation of the Mass and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the chalice for the laity is going, going, almost gone. The cup is once again to be withheld from the laity, in Phoenix at any rate. A spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said she is unaware of another U.S. diocese enacting such a restriction.
I can’t really think this is a good thing. Ecumenically-minded pastors like me have for years tried to dampen the Lutheran penchant for sacramental self-righteousness. This is a real set-back in our effort toward achieving Lutheran humility.
September 28th, 2011 | 2:21 pm
Just start thinking about how most Lutheran denominations approach gay marriage and abortion, and you should be able to make great strides in the attainment of that humility you so earnestly seek.
September 28th, 2011 | 4:29 pm
Gee, I’m sorry to hear that the Lutherans (whom I admire) have gone in for the “bartender” position instead of “facing the east”. Take heed at how far we Episcopalians have fallen by destroying our liturgy and cheapening our services….turn east young man! turn east! (with thanks to Horace Greeley)
September 28th, 2011 | 11:45 pm
With regards to letting the priest ” face the people as Christ undoubtedly faced the disciples,” check out the following article (http://www.dappledthings.org/essays_lightfromeast.php) by Matthew Alderman in Dappled Things, titled “Light from the East: The Orientation of Christian Worship in Light of Modern Scholarship.” Contrary to Luther’s assumption, Alderman argues (citing various scholarly works) that ‘The true arrangement for the Last Supper would have been a semicircular table with Christ reclining on the extreme right-hand side, an arrangement “difficult to order [in] a modern church.”’ He explains how the ad orientem position dates from the very early church. I’m not going to cite his whole article here, but you’re welcome to go read it if you’re interested in the matter.
Archeology and liturgical philosophies aside, I simply find from a purely subjective point of view that an ad orientem Mass naturally induces me to look to Christ and his real sacramental presence on the altar much more than when the priest is “performing” for me. When the priest is facing there with the rest of us, it just makes it all the more clear that we are all looking at Someone who is really there.
September 29th, 2011 | 1:35 am
re: “When the priest is facing there with the rest of us, it just makes it all the more clear that we are all looking at Someone who is really there.”
But of course when two or more are gathered in Christ’s name, even though we might be facing one another, Christ is REALLY there as well. As Henri DeLubac was fond of reminding people, for most of Christian history the term corpus verum was used to refer to the Church and corpus mysticum referred to the eucharistic host. These terms were only inverted much later in Church history.
September 29th, 2011 | 2:18 am
The Arizona Republic, although a conservative paper generally, has frequently exhibited a distinct bias against The Catholic Church. I would encourage everyone to visit the website of the diocese before they form a judgement. Bishop Olmsted is a humble and learned man who has been a blessing to our diocese. If this article in the Republic were a drinking game of “spot the theological errors and other logical fallacies” one would be quite in their cups before one reached the end of it.
September 29th, 2011 | 5:21 am
I really don’t agree at all that smugness has anything to do with it. The Lutherans have tried to do what they thought was either true or right. Doing one’s theological or liturgical duty has nothing to do with “smugness” or “exceptionalism” — which are gratuitously insulting ways to describe conviction. Reform and smugness are no more closely connected than resistance to reform and smugness. I notice that while you could have described Roman practices and beliefs in precisely those terms, you did not.
It makes one wonder, are you being smug by trying to make this point — especially in this way? Couldn’t you have given an account of the historical development of these practices on both sides without attributing smugness to either one?
September 29th, 2011 | 8:22 am
Although I do believe the cup should not be withheld from the laity, I fear Mr. Bauman missed the bulge in my cheek resulting from having my tongue planted firmly therein.
September 29th, 2011 | 8:38 am
A while ago they revised the rules (at least in the archdiocese of Washington) so that the vessels used for mass have to be cleaned by the priest or deacon while the congregation sits on their hands and waits.
It’s times a while, and it’s incredibly annoying.
When they made this change I suspected it was a strategic move to get people to long for the old days of communion in one kind only.
Is there, perhaps, a movement among the bishops to try to move the church back to communion in one kind? I hope not.
September 29th, 2011 | 9:23 am
As an Anglo-Catholic teaching at an evangelical Protestant school, we as “communicants” -either Lutheran or Catholic- need to explain to our fellowship why the Eucharist is part of our rich life with Christ and his church. So many of my students come well-equipped with “sola scriptura” on their lips, yet have no idea about the presence of Jesus in communion! How can our concerns reach farther?
September 29th, 2011 | 9:47 am
I am fortunate to serve at a free standing altar, so that I may face the congregation as I consecrate the elements. I have always elevated the host and genuflected, to express that the Eucharist is the fulfillment of the service (as well as to disperse any modernist/protestant misapprehensions about symbolism.)
I’ve never been without a rail at which to kneel. It would be felt as a serious deprivation by many of my congregants to be without one. The most intense prayers are seen there.
When a pastor does his job right, he disappears and all that a worshiper is aware of is Jesus.
September 29th, 2011 | 11:08 am
“A while ago they revised the rules (at least in the archdiocese of Washington) so that the vessels used for mass have to be cleaned by the priest or deacon while the congregation sits on their hands and waits.”
I think you’re going about this all wrong, probably because you’ve gotten too used to the Mass as a “performance” to be watched, so that there has to be action at all times, and whenever there isn’t that, you have “downtime.” While the vessels are being cleaned is a perfect moment to enter into silence and meditate on what — or Who, rather — you have just received. I humbly propose you take that attitude to the next Mass you attend and use time that is given to you for silent meditation, rather than just “sitting on your hands.” I don’t mean this to sound like a rebuke, by the way, but rather an encouragement for getting the best out of every Mass.
September 29th, 2011 | 11:56 am
As a convert, I’ve never really cared all that much about under what appearance I receive Christ. The bread is His body, every atom of it, and when you have that you don’t really want anything else. You can have the wine as well but that’s not really the point. But hey, Lutherans and Catholics believe different things, so what are you gonna do?
Oh yeah, and cause I’m barely out of my teens I’ve never experienced a Mass where the priest faces away from the congregation. Again, I don’t really see much to fuss over. So the priest faces the same direction as everyone else- big deal. Christ is still there, the sacrifice is still there- who cares?
Now the hymns, on the other hand…
September 29th, 2011 | 4:26 pm
Harry, while it’s certainly of the utmost importance that Christ is there in the bread, He’s there in the wine too — just as much. Don’t you think it’s better to get as much Jesus in you as possible?
And for another thing: it’s important to partake of The Lord’s presence, but it’s also pretty important for us to do what He told us to do. And He seems to have pretty clearly told us to take both bread and wine together, not just one or the other. Anyway, that’s what us Protestants think…
September 29th, 2011 | 4:50 pm
Mr. Bauman – Pastor Saltzman’s not being smug, he’s being “winsome.”
Pastor S. – great piece, but you gotta expect that with columns like these you’re gonna “win some” and “lose some.”
September 29th, 2011 | 8:25 pm
Dear Ethan C. asks, “Don’t you think it’s better to get as much Jesus in you as possible?”. By that logic, one should eat five pounds of consecrated hosts.
Of course, it is not a matter of quantity, nor of numbers. One does not receive twice as much of Christ by receiving under two kinds. Christ is not divided. There is one Christ. There is one loaf; there is one cup; and the loaf and the cup are both the one Christ. The Christ partaken of in one mass is one and the same as the Christ partaken of at another mass. Receiving under the form of bread, I receive the Lord one and undivided.
Jesus said to the Apostles, “he who hears you hears me”. The Church tells me that receiving under the form of bread is a true and full communion — and in hearing the Church tell me that, I hear Christ telling me that.
The Body of Christ which is His Church tells me how I must and may receive the Body of Christ; and that is enough for me. The humility of the Catholic lies in submitting his judgment to the teaching of the Church.
September 29th, 2011 | 9:58 pm
George, I’d call it a failed attempt at winsome — which is clearly better than no attempt at all.
September 29th, 2011 | 11:25 pm
Going to side with Harry on this one. Considering the following story of St. Bridgid of Kildare, I doubt the saint would have a problem with the distribution of wine to the laity or with the priest facing the congregation (apologies for long quote):
But, yes, the laity must live up to their part, especially as regards music.
September 30th, 2011 | 10:57 am
Stephen M. Barr, I did mean that little comment as a bit of a joke.
But as to partaking under both kinds, perhaps I simply prefer to follow what St. Paul received from The Lord and conveniently wrote down for our reference, rather than what some unknown cleric devised in the Middle Ages to remind the peasants of their inferiority.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact