Is being able to do things in a Lutheran manner. Over at First Things, Leroy Huizenga, a former Lutheran and now Roman Catholic, muses on the celebration of the Eucharist. He says that it was the Romainst teaching on the Eucharist that drove him to Rome. Yet, he mourns that the great doctrine is not matched by the practice. (As Luther would say, “Ahh, now do you smell the roast?”) So what practice does he long for as befitting the great and profound mystery that is our Lord’s Body (and Blood, but as a Romanist, they don’t do that sort of thing)?
Why, the very Lutheran practice of approaching the altar reverently, small table by small table, kneeling, receiving the body and blood in silence and with time for meditation on the mystery, and then being dismissed. Apparently this was the custom under the Tridentine Mass. The Novus Ordo changed it, making the assumbly line method preferred, and taking away some of the mystery. I agree with him that the more reverent practice is to be preferred, but then am compelled to ask, “Is it possible that, having neglected the Lord’s explicit command (Take Drink…) and then having giving in to modernism (Evolution) and it’s command that there be no mystery, might Rome not be all it’s cracked up to be with regard to it’s understanding of the Eucharist?”
My parish still celebrates the Sacrament with great reverence. There is mystery to spare. There is a firm understanding that the Sacrament is not mere symbol.
And not to be snarky about it, but Luther didn’t invent the “spiritual eating” thought for John 6: that was Thomas Aquinas. Also, suggesting to Rome that they aught to be more like Wittenberg is unlikely to win many adherents.