30 May 2007

A Break In...

We had a horrific occurrence last Sunday night/Monday morning. Someone waltzed into the church through a door that I had left open and took the consecrated wine and the unconsecrated wine and our old communion set (silver), bypassing the new gold set and the wine sitting in the cabinet.

It changed everything for me. I decided it was far better not to have any consecrated wine left over, to put no one in the danger of such a temptation. Beginning this past Sunday all consecrated wine was consumed in the Divine Service or immediately afterward. I took the shutins this week bread and wine which I consecrated in their presence and which was consumed entirely.

The danger of sacrilege is too great. Using the new Pastoral Care Companion, I consecrated the sacrament in their presence, received with them, and every bit of the consecrated elements was consumed. Those old Lutherans, they were really onto something by insisting that nothing be left over. It took a break in for me to understand...

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear that. How odd.

FWIW: When I am shut in, nothing is complete without being present with the pastor who consecrates the elements.

It just seems natural.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear that sir.

I'm surprised you did not practice complete consumption.

Kung Fu Master Brockman does it every Sunday morning.

Anonymous said...

Lord have mercy!

Deb

Erich Heidenreich, DDS said...

Do you think it would have helped to have had the reliqiae stored in a locked tabernacle? Or were they?

William Weedon said...

The reliquae were stored in a locked cabinet that a member had crafted for this special use. It was made to mirror the altar in many ways (with the Alpha and Omega upon it, for example). But the cabinet was broken into.

That's what was odd: there were two bottles of unconsecrated wine sitting in a another unlocked cabinet, and yet the person went to the trouble to break into the locked communion cabinet.

Rev. Paul T. McCain said...

I think our Lutheran fathers were extremely wise to do away with the reservation of consecrated bread and wine. And what a joy it is for our shut-ins also to hear the Lord's Word, and to receive that powerful Gospel, "Given for you" and "Shed for you." So many unnecessary questions and potential sources of confusion, doubt or concern are eliminated when we "take and eat" and be done with it.

It still baffles me, Bill, as I reflected on this desecration and outrage, as to why or how a person would bother to come to your church, which is not exactly in a crowded area and steal these things.

I hate to say it, but I would not be surprised if it was a person who knew what they were looking for and where to find it. It is really "fishy" that they took the older communion set, not the newer one.

123 said...

I believe the reserved Sacrament in Orthodox churches is the Body that had been intincted in Blood and then allowed to dry. So, there is only a very small amount of anything stored in the tabernacle on the altar. This way, no big fancy chalices, patens, etc. to tempt people to steal them - and, likely accidentally, what is inside of them. The same is done for he Liturgy of the Presanctified during Lenten periods where communion is of this intincted Body with added wine and water.

The more interesting question, to me, is why the Church until the Reformation did reserve the sacrament. Our locks are better today and they had just as much or more of an understanding of the Real Presence. What does this say about *how* the Liturgy/Mass is supposed to be served? What did they see as the 'minimal requirements' for a Liturgy/Mass to 'perform' the Sacrament? In Orthodoxy, for instance, there is no allowance for the consecration of the Sacrament apart from a regular Divine Liturgy with the Liturgy of the Catechumens and the Liturgy of the Faithful - and which cannot be abbreviated to the Anaphora, the words of institution with the epiklesis, etc.

RPW said...

"I hate to say it, but I would not be surprised if it was a person who knew what they were looking for and where to find it. It is really "fishy" that they took the older communion set, not the newer one."

In California, we saw this behavior, especially of stealing consecrated elements, from Satanists who used them in their rituals that mimicked and mocked Christian ones.

Mimi said...

What a horrific event, I'm so sorry to hear.

Anonymous said...

A sad event to be sure.

I suspect that many of those that will cheer your decision to no longer keep a reserved sacrament in church are many of the same people that would deny or at least question that what was stolen, was indeed Christ's body/blood, which is the true tragedy of this event.

Anonymous said...

Dear Brother,
Sorry to hear of this event. The church of which I was a member prior to becoming a pastor was broken into an vandalized, the perpetrators left occultic, anti-christian and (oddly enough) anti semitic graftti on the front doors of the church. It was a very difficult time for the members, theft would have been bad but understandable, vandalism was a violation of their sacred place. I imagine the same is true for you and yours, I pray peace be with you all.
RPW's comments echo my thoughts, as over the years I have shopped for sacramental vessels for my congregations and have often had sellers address the concern that what they were selling be used for its intended purpose by Christians.
Though one should never underestimate the stupidity of a theif, it is odd in this day and age to steal sacramental vessels, be they silver or gold. Unless they're jeweled, where does one fence such and item and get its value? Its not like a burglar stealing jewelry, there's not much profit in this sort of crime.
It was difficult in the aforementioned circumstance in my church; but we did pray for those who had done such wrong, the greater concern was for those lost souls who would even consider such a dastardly act-doubly so in taking the reliquae. What could be greater evidence of a lost soul in need of being bought back by the body and blood of Christ?
We were thankful no one of our congregation(i.e., secretaries, teachers, DCE) were not harmed but it was an anxious time for us all.

Again, dear brother, peace to you and yours.

Rev. Allen Bergstrazer

William Weedon said...

Thanks all, for the kind words. It was really a shock and quite odd.

Of course, it is BECAUSE what was taken was the consecrated wine, which our Lord had declared to be His true blood shed for the forgiveness of our sins, that the break-in was so disturbing.

Nothing Satanic, I suspect, because the consecrated hosts were untouched. I think the person wanted alcohol. Though why the other wine in an unlocked cabinet was untouched is beyond me.

Chris said...

I would be perhaps not only sad that the consecrated wine was taken, but that the individual would drink it while actively sinning. Do you think St. Paul considered this "partaking in an unworthy manner?"

So very sorry to hear about it Father.

Pax Christi

Anonymous said...

my heart is terribly grieved.
I wonder if the unconsecrated was left alone because it was not found, while the lock served as a neon arrow for the thief...

Schütz said...

From time to time there are cases of this happening in Catholic Churches. Last one I heard of, the priest was saying masses in reparation for the desecration for a whole year afterwards. (I thought I would just say that to see which of you Lutherans take the bait!).

A couple of things:

1) the practice of taking the presanctified Eucharist to the sick is very, very ancient. And I understand that Luther himself and the Lutheran Church of the first 100years and even Pastor Loehe (of the Mission and Agende fame) observed this practice of the ancient Church. The idea of celebrating a private mass in the homes of the sick has no precedence in the Catholic Church. An INNOVATION, Reverend Gentlemen.

2) I take it that you believe in the perduration of the presence, Pastor Weedon (as did Luther), whereas Pastor McCain seems to think it is better to avoid "idle speculation" by the total consumption. What do you think of the old saying "When Christ gives a gift, he doesn't take it back"? And even if the Lutheran theorists are right, and the bread which has been the body of Christ somehow stops being the body of Christ at some point after the service has ended, is the bread itself not still holy by the fact that it has been in intimate association with the body of Christ? This would be enough to "consecrate" the paten and the chalice, why not the very bread itself?

William Weedon said...

Not fair. When YOU guys do something "new", it is a DEVELOPMENT and UNFOLDING of the tradition; when WE do it is an INNOVATION. ;)

Seriously, the act of celebrating a Eucharist in the presence of the sick person is something that the Lutheran Church believes she has the freedom and authority to do, and that the reason for the practice among us originally arose precisely out of reverence for the consecrated elements. Because in Lutheranism is it not possible to deny the chalice to those whom Christ said: "Take and drink" the matter of bringing the consecrated elementS becomes more difficult. The standard practice in Lutheran Orthodoxy was total consumption in a given Mass.

I should not presume to speak for Pastor McCain, but I'd be willing to bet that his concern is not with duration, per se, but with the repeated instruction to consume entirely the elements to prevent the question of the duration even arising.

I believe that our Lord's Words give gifts that He does not "take back." But I see nothing in the Lord's words that forbid that the Sacrament be celebrated in the home of the sick; heavens! It was first celebrated in a home, of course, and continued to be so for several years.

I think the practice of reservation for the purpose of communing the sick is neither an abuse nor unLutheran. However, it would be unLutheran to insist that it were the only way commune the sick.

Chris had earlier addressed the question of minimalism in such a celebration. For the sake of clarification, our liturgy book for this celebration instructs the following in two different ordos:

1. In the first:

Peace
Confession (private confession)
Absolution
Anointing
Kyrie
Our Father
Preces
Prayer for the sick
Prayer of Thanksgiving
Words of Christ
Distribution
Collect of Thanksgiving
Benediction

That form is intended when dealing with a person who is seriously ill and for whom brevity is a must.

2. The Regular Form for Homebound/sick

Invocation
Confession and Absolution
Collect of the Day
Readings
Brief Exposition of the Word of God
Apostles' Creed
Preface and Proper Preface
Sanctus
Our Father
Words of Our Lord
Pax Domini
Agnus Dei
Distribution
Nunc Dimittis
Collect of Thanksgiving
Benediction

Rev. Paul T. McCain said...

Pr. Weedon, you said:

I should not presume to speak for Pastor McCain, but I'd be willing to bet that his concern is not with duration, per se, but with the repeated instruction to consume entirely the elements to prevent the question of the duration even arising.

Yes, precisely so.

And, I would note, former Pastor David, that Romanist nonsense with reservation is a direct disobedience of our Lord who says, "Take and EAT" not "Take and reserve, lock up for later."

And he certainly does not say, "Take and eat and what is left over lock up in a little tabernacle, then take it out, worship it, adore it and parade it around.

123 said...

I should note that all but the small amount of the intincted Body reserved for other than ordinary need is fully consumed by the junior most Deacon, if one served, the junior most Priest that didn't serve, or the Priest if he served alone.

Pastor McCain should also deal with the historical fact that it was the common and widespread practice of the early Church to reserve a portion of the Eucharist for various uses. So, historical context gives greater nuance to the command you cite. However, the command was the general rule for the first 1000 or so years of Church history until the 'development' or 'innovation' of the Western Church regarding Adoration. Supposedly, this was because a question arose regarding the Real Presence, so this is the same argument used by some in favor of the West's 'need' to develop or innovate a theological response to the Western heresy of Pelagianism and thus discovered greater clarity in doctrine that the East was ever required to - and thus does without, to their detriment.