Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist, Revisited

[JonNC]

Recently, an old thread was responded to, and was subsequently closed. I would like to respond to a couple of the comments in that short thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=47759

Originally posted by Erich

Which explains why there is no tradition of Eucharistic Adoration among Lutherans.

That said, I know several (and, by extension, I assume most) Lutheran congregations have folks whose responsibility it is to bring the communion elements to their homebound members… which makes me wonder, “what do they believe they’re receiving, if they also believe the Presence ends once the liturgy is over?” Perhaps some of the Lutherans on this board can answer this?

Hi Erich,
To say there is no tradition of Eucharistic within Lutheranism is not entirely accurate. All Lutherans practice Adoration during the sacramental act. Luther himself did not oppose Eucharist Adoration beyond the sacramantal act, but others did, not for any reason but what they saw as misuse of the blessed sacrament, such as the Corpus Christi Procession, etc. And, there are some, though certainly not all, Lutherans today
that do practice it, with the use on a monstrance, aumbry, and the like.

And this leads to the answer of youre second concern. The reason that a Lutheran Pastor can take the consecrated elements to someone who is shut in is because that is part of the sacramental act, which includes its primary purpose - to eat and drink His true and substantial body and blood.

Another poster who seems to no longer post here said, “From what I understand, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation - the true body and blood of Christ are present along with (con) the actual bread and the wine.”

Lutherans reject consubstantiation for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it uses the same kind of metaphysical language that Transubstantiation uses. Lutherans - true Lutherans - accept Christ’s words, “this IS my body”. It is clearly a mystery how this happens, as Christ went into no further explanation.

I invite others to respond.
Jon

 

[Lancer]

JonNC Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist, RevisitedLutherans reject consubstantiation for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it uses the same kind of metaphysical language that Transubstantiation uses. Lutherans - true Lutherans - accept Christ’s words, “this IS my body”. It is clearly a mystery how this happens, as Christ went into no further explanation.

“My 2 Cents” only…but I beg to differ with you…Christ did say more…something critically important…that only “…this is my Body…my Blood…” in this mystery of the Eucharist and in all other mysteries also:

John 16:13 (New International Version)

13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

AND…

Matthew 16:17-20 (New International Version)

17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;** whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.**” 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

**AND…**FROM PAUL…

1 Timothy 3:15 (New International Version)

15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

So, there is only one doctrine/dogma on the Eucharist…and it can come from only one source…Jesus himself…and his Church (One Head and One Body)…who made Peter his Church’s rock foundation with Jesus himself as the cornerstone. Thus Saint Peter (and his successor…the Pope)…is the guardian of the Truths of Christ in his Holy Spirit who continues to lead the Chruch into all truth…in faith and morals.

Somethings in dogma/doctrine – subjects/issues --there might be some opening for some discussions/nuances…but the dogma and doctrine of the Blessed Sacrament…the Eucharist…which is Our Lord Jesus Christ himself…is not one of them! Christ’s Church led by his Holy Spirit has defined the dogma of the Eucharist…and nuances and other definitions are completely unacceptable…because they are theologically wrong or inaccurate (not precise).

Therefore…

Catechism of The Catholic Church (CCC):**1376 **The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."

So the Lutheran understanding although sincere and close…in this case,said another way… “close” only counts in horseshoes…but not in the dogma of the Eucharist!

Again, my “2 Cents”…for your consideration…
Pax Christi

 

[SteveVH]

Recently, an old thread was responded to, and was subsequently closed. I would like to respond to a couple of the comments in that short thread.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=47759

Hi Erich,
To say there is no tradition of Eucharistic within Lutheranism is not entirely accurate. All Lutherans practice Adoration during the sacramental act. Luther himself did not oppose Eucharist Adoration beyond the sacramantal act, but others did, not for any reason but what they saw as misuse of the blessed sacrament, such as the Corpus Christi Procession, etc. And, there are some, though certainly not all, Lutherans today
that do practice it, with the use on a monstrance, aumbry, and the like.

And this leads to the answer of youre second concern. The reason that a Lutheran Pastor can take the consecrated elements to someone who is shut in is because that is part of the sacramental act, which includes its primary purpose - to eat and drink His true and substantial body and blood.

Another poster who seems to no longer post here said, “From what I understand, Lutherans believe in consubstantiation - the true body and blood of Christ are present along with (con) the actual bread and the wine.”

Lutherans reject consubstantiation for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it uses the same kind of metaphysical language that Transubstantiation uses. Lutherans - true Lutherans - accept Christ’s words, “this IS my body”. It is clearly a mystery how this happens, as Christ went into no further explanation.

I invite others to respond.
Jon

Jon, thanks for opening this back up. I went to the old thread and was bummed to find it closed as I never had a chance to comment.

I guess I’ve always wondered why anyone has a problem with Transubstantiation. It seems to make perfect sense to me. It is the substance or essence of the matter that changes rather than the form of the matter. I’m not real concerned about having to try and define how this happens. Believing that it IS the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is enough. I’m sure the early Christians didn’t worry too much about it, they just believed, but then, they were not challenged as the Church was when it finally defined it.

What I don’t understand is why, as you have pointed out, that when Christ said “this is my body” you believe it ceases to be his body just because everyone decides to go home. He didn’t say that either.

Blessings.

Steve

 

[JonNC]

=SteveVH;7167964]Jon, thanks for opening this back up. I went to the old thread and was bummed to find it closed as I never had a chance to comment.

My pleasure.

I guess I’ve always wondered why anyone has a problem with Transubstantiation. It seems to make perfect sense to me. It is the substance or essence of the matter that changes rather than the form of the matter.

I might be different in that I see nothing wrong with Transub as a reasonable human expression. I only have issue with it being dogmatically defined.
I’m not real concerned about having to try and define how this happens. Believing that it IS the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is enough. I’m sure the early Christians didn’t worry too much about it, they just believed, but then, they were not challenged as the Church was when it finally defined it, as our friend Lancer just pointed out. And the valid point he makes is, why we both believe that the Eucharist is His true and substantial body and blood, we are divided because of the ways our communions express it.

What I don’t understand is why, as you have pointed out, that when Christ said “this is my body” you believe it ceases to be his body just because everyone decides to go home. He didn’t say that either.

I’m one of those Lutherans who believes is is is, not is is is for now.

Jon

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Lancer, in regard to transubstantiation, you say that Lutheranism is close, but it only counts in horseshoes. You put yourself in an untenable position. The Lutheran understanding is the same as the Orthodox and the Catholic understanding, with perhaps a little leaning toward the Orthodox idea of seeing it as a mystery. First, the Orthodox point of view, taken from orthodoxwiki.org:
The Eucharist is both symbolic and mystical. Also, the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ, precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and his manifestation to us in Christ.
The mystery of the Holy Eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the Eucharist, as Christ himself, is a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The Eucharist, because it belongs to God’s Kingdom, is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.
From John of Damascus: “If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit … we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable”.

Now the Lutheran understanding, from the Augsburg Confession:
54] The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Jon, thanks for opening this back up. I went to the old thread and was bummed to find it closed as I never had a chance to comment.

I guess I’ve always wondered why anyone has a problem with Transubstantiation. It seems to make perfect sense to me. It is the substance or essence of the matter that changes rather than the form of the matter. I’m not real concerned about having to try and define how this happens. Believing that it IS the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ is enough. I’m sure the early Christians didn’t worry too much about it, they just believed, but then, they were not challenged as the Church was when it finally defined it.

What I don’t understand is why, as you have pointed out, that when Christ said “this is my body” you believe it ceases to be his body just because everyone decides to go home. He didn’t say that either.

Blessings.

Steve

It’s not like he also said…and make sure have a little silver tray under your chin when you partake of me. And, keep me in a shiny box when done. And, if you drop me make sure you do A, B and C.And, make a special drain, because guess what. I’m water soluble! So, if there is a little tiny piece of me left just pour water on me, stir, and dump me out. So we can split this into fine pieces all night long. I believe there is a real presence. You do to. How it happens really doesn’t concern me all that much.

 

[JonNC]

Lancer, in regard to transubstantiation, you say that Lutheranism is close, but it only counts in horseshoes. You put yourself in an untenable position. The Lutheran understanding is the same as the Orthodox and the Catholic understanding, with perhaps a little leaning toward the Orthodox idea of seeing it as a mystery. First, the Orthodox point of view, taken from orthodoxwiki.org:
The Eucharist is both symbolic and mystical. Also, the Eucharist in the Orthodox Church is understood to be the genuine Body and Blood of Christ, precisely because bread and wine are the mysteries and symbols of God’s true and genuine presence and his manifestation to us in Christ.
The mystery of the Holy Eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms. For the Eucharist, as Christ himself, is a mystery of the Kingdom of Heaven which, as Jesus has told us, is “not of this world.” The Eucharist, because it belongs to God’s Kingdom, is truly free from the earth-born “logic” of fallen humanity.
From John of Damascus: “If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit … we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable”.

Now the Lutheran understanding, from the Augsburg Confession:
54] The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ.

I very interesting and compelling side-by-side comparison. Melanchthon’s description above, from the Apology, is by far the best description of the Eucharist from a Lutheran POV.

Jon

 

[SnakeMauler]

Wait a minute, a Muslim guy told me that “Spirit of Truth” Jesus spoke of was Muhammad. What’s this gotta do with the Eucharist?

 

[JonNC]

Wait a minute, a Muslim guy told me that “Spirit of Truth” Jesus spoke of was Muhammad. What’s this gotta do with the Eucharist?

I can’t find where anyone in the thread mentioned “spirit of truth”, unless I missed it. Maybe you could elaborate.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

It’s not like he also said…and make sure have a little silver tray under your chin when you partake of me. And, keep me in a shiny box when done. And, if you drop me make sure you do A, B and C.And, make a special drain, because guess what. I’m water soluble! So, if there is a little tiny piece of me left just pour water on me, stir, and dump me out. So we can split this into fine pieces all night long. I believe there is a real presence. You do to. How it happens really doesn’t concern me all that much.

This is a first for me. I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone respond in such a negative manner right out of the shoot. Now that you have sufficiently demeaned the reverence and respect that Catholics’s have for the Blessed Sacrament, I hope you feel better and have gotten it out of your system.

I had gained a great amount of respect for the Lutherans on this forum, to the point of actually feeling a kinship. Do you realize that it is possible to have discussions without trashing each other’s faith? I was only asking for an explanation of Lutheran beliefs concerning the Eucharist. I guess it depends on who you ask.

God bless.

 

[JonNC]

As a general thought, I find Catholic reverence, even if it appears to others as over the top, to be far more acceptable than some of the irreverence I’ve seen and heard of even in some Lutheran settings concerning the reliquiae.
I would suggest that Luther would spin in his grave if he saw some of the current practices in Lutheran congregations. I think we would do well to return to more reverent practices, and could learn a thing or two from our Catholic siblings in this regard.

=Lutheranteach;7168550]It’s not like he also said…and make sure have a little silver tray under your chin when you partake of me. And, keep me in a shiny box when done. And, if you drop me make sure you do A, B and C

There are some Lutherans who use a monstrance or aumbry. This is not an exclusively Catholic practice, and frankly, I’d like to see more of us use it, if all is not consumed, (except what is reserved for sick and shut-ins.

And, make a special drain, because guess what. I’m water soluble! So, if there is a little tiny piece of me left just pour water on me, stir, and dump me out.

It is further an appropriate practice to use a piscina, that special drain you reference, and some Lutheran parishes do.

So we can split this into fine pieces all night long. I believe there is a real presence. You do to. How it happens really doesn’t concern me all that much.

t is more than “a” real presence. Melanchthon calls it the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

Jon

 

[lutherlic]

Thank you Jon.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

I was also taken aback at Lutheranteach’s comments. I hope we can get some clarification on them.

Our parish administrator is Catholic and she had a catalog of liturgical supplies, She looked up the prices of monstrances and tabernacles and we were both pretty surprised at how much they could cost. My thought was that I hoped that poor and new parishes could draw from some sort of supply when parishes decided to replace their old accouterments with new ones. I have been on church council for six years, so money matters are always close to mind. This was not a criticism of the practices themselves.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Actually, all I am saying is that I think we (all denominations) have at times this misguided need at times to over regulate things…the numerous threads of CITH or COTT is a prime example. There have also been threads on whether or not it’s okay that the the priest used his left hand rather than his right. I just find a certain “are you kidding me?” aspect to all this when nearly half don’t understand or believe in a real presence. What we’ll shrug off and what we find so important sometimes baffles me.

 

[SteveVH]

As a general thought, I find Catholic reverence, even if it appears to others as over the top, to be far more acceptable than some of the irreverence I’ve seen and heard of even in some Lutheran settings concerning the reliquiae.
I would suggest that Luther would spin in his grave if he saw some of the current practices in Lutheran congregations. I think we would do well to return to more reverent practices, and could learn a thing or two from our Catholic siblings in this regard.

There are some Lutherans who use a monstrance or aumbry. This is not an exclusively Catholic practice, and frankly, I’d like to see more of us use it, if all is not consumed, (except what is reserved for sick and shut-ins.

It is further an appropriate practice to use a piscina, that special drain you reference, and some Lutheran parishes do.

t is more than “a” real presence. Melanchthon calls it the true and substantial body and blood of Christ.

Jon

Thank you Jon. My faith in our Lutheran brothers and sisters has been restored.

 

[SteveVH]

Actually, all I am saying is that I think we (all denominations) have at times this misguided need at times to over regulate things…the numerous threads of CITH or COTT is a prime example. There have also been threads on whether or not it’s okay that the the priest used his left hand rather than his right. I just find a certain “are you kidding me?” aspect to all this when nearly half don’t understand or believe in a real presence. What we’ll shrug off and what we find so important sometimes baffles me.

I heard a saying once that “Those who cannot hear the music think the dancer is daft”. I think it applies in this case. There are many things that may seem strange until one gains an understanding of the purpose behind them. When we speak of a religion that is over 2000 years old, there are bound to be issues that would fall into this category.

God bless.

 

[Newbie2]

. And, there are some, though certainly not all, Lutherans today
that do practice it, with the use on a monstrance, aumbry, and the like.

Jon

Jon, do you know if this is limited to certain Synods? I never heard of it in the LCMS.

As well, it seems a curious practice if one does not believe in transubstantiation. It seems to me that looking upon what are considered simply hosts and not the true body of Christ…well…it’s curious. I can’t think of the word I want.

Now during the Sacrament, I get it. But adoration if the host does not become the actual body of Christ? I don’t get that. Maybe I misunderstand?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jon, do you know if this is limited to certain Synods? I never heard of it in the LCMS.

As well, it seems a curious practice if one does not believe in transubstantiation. It seems to me that looking upon what are considered simply hosts and not the true body of Christ…well…it’s curious. I can’t think of the word I want.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Thanks for the clarification, LT. It helps to know where you are coming from.

A long-time member of the congregation bought us cases of Richards Wild Irish Rose to use for communion. I once found a bottle of Galil cabernet sauvignon . I was so proud to have it replace the RWIR. I usually sat behind him and after communion, he turned to me and said, “Well, the blood of Christ really turned to vinegar this week didn’t it?” I took it as a sign that I needed to be more humble.

I was baptized in a marble font that had high relief carving all around in a church in Germany. When my step-father decided to be baptized, the pastor came to his house to baptize him. We got a bowl out of the cabinet and used it. The font added nothing and the bowl took nothing away from the validity of the sacrament.

Do we then do away with all these trappings? Of course not. Luke used metaphor of physical possessions to show the disposition of the heart, and we need to view such things as monstrances in the same light. They are a sign of the great devotion that the believers have. As with anything that humans do, such things can be overdone. That is the problem of the believers, not of the objects themselves.

All these matters are the product of how the human mind tries to grasp the infinite. The quote from the Orthodox statement on transubstantation is most pertinent. “The mystery of the Holy Eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms.”

 

[SteveVH]

Could you be thinking of the biblical word discernment?