Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist, Revisited

[Gabriel_of_12]

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.”

Hello Oldtimer Your Orthodox quote never defines transubstantiation here. It does not apply to ]“The mystery of the Holy Eucharist defies analysis and explanation in purely rational and logical terms.” Because Catholics believe this mystery cannot never be defined in human terms.

The Orthodox’s argument against transubstantiation has a false pretense. Because Orthodox are claiming “themselves” that transubstantiation defines or tries to define, the mystery of the Eucharist, this is never the case with the definition of transubstantiation.

Its almost comical when ever I see this false pretense rendered here from the Orthodox position, because when ever this false argument is given it is done without the accurate definition or lack of definition in transubstantiation attached to their false arguments against transubstantiation, and only give their one sided argument of the mystery of the Eucharist which no Catholic nor the definition of transubstantiation argues against, just as you have posted here.

In summary their is no difference of belief in the mystery of the Eucharist between Catholics and Orthodox. Transubstantiation protects and defends against those opposed to the True presence and never ever defines the mystery of the Eucharist as is falsely claimed by some Orthodox who refuse to understand it because of authority issues, not the doctrine.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel, you have given one of the best explanations I have heard. There is a common misconception that the use of Transubstantiation is an exhaustive definition of the mystery, when in fact, we can never penetrate the mystery with our human intellect. Neither did the Apostles when Jesus asked them “will you also leave”

Your very welcome, and thanks for your kind words I love your summary which takes this mystery of the Eucharist language and understanding to another level. It reminded me of Pauls teaching similar to the definition of transubstantiation.

1Cor.2;9 But as it is written: “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” 10** this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11 Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.**

(Here’s pre-transubstantiation about Jesus words when He says “it is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail”)

14 **Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. **15 The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” **But we have the mind of Christ. **

God bless you

 

[SteveVH]

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?

I was truly ignorant of that fact that there could be so much diversity of opinion within the same denomination on matters of doctrine, and especially matters of doctrine concerning something as important as the Eucharist. I understand this when speaking of non-liturgical denominations which seem to splinter on a daily basis over fairly trivial matters. But I was under the impression that there was at least some unity of belief on matters of this magnitude with the Lutheran Church.

Can someone help me here?

 

[JonNC]

=Newbie2;7175610]Jon, do you know if this is limited to certain Synods? I never heard of it in the LCMS.

Actually, I don’t know. I do know of parishes within the LCMS and the ELCA that do these things. there are een some that use bells and incense.

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.

One doesn’t have to believe in Transub. to recognize the fact that, once consecrated, the bread is the body of Christ, as He said. Same with the wine - it is the blood of Christ. It is not a symbolic or merely spiritual presence. It IS His body and blood.

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?

Hope my explanation above helps.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I was truly ignorant of that fact that there could be so much diversity of opinion within the same denomination on matters of doctrine, and especially matters of doctrine concerning something as important as the Eucharist. I understand this when speaking of non-liturgical denominations which seem to splinter on a daily basis over fairly trivial matters. But I was under the impression that there was at least some unity of belief on matters of this magnitude with the Lutheran Church.

Can someone help me here?

There is a solid unity of belief amongst confessional Lutherans - as Melanchthon said. I have no doubt that all Lutherans, if properly catechized, and not influenced by Reformed views, as has happened here in America, will tell you that it is His body and blood.
The issue with Eucharistic adoration outside the sacramental act is in regards to Christ’s command for the blessed sacrament, that we are to eat and drink. Even in John 6, His call is that we eat and drink. There is noting wrong with adoration, in my view (in fact, there is value in it, as I see it), but this is above and beyond Christ’s command that we eat and drink.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;7176161]

Could you be thinking of the biblical word discernment?

1Cor. 11: 27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
thinking of the biblical word “discernment”?

I agree with this, and it is why LCMS practices close communion.

I believe the fine line is drawn, in not the “True presence” between Catholics and (some?) Lutherans but when, where and how the discernment of the True presence of Jesus body and blood are made presence to the believer, and this question is close to disappearing “the validity of the Eucharist”? between Catholic and Lutheran communions.

Perhaps you could explain this further.

The Catholic church from history has protected and defended the Apostolic Sacred and written Traditions against heretics and heresies which have come against these teachings (sacraments) instituted by Jesus himself handed down to us from the apostles to today, by placing them as “dogma” binding on all believers in the body of Jesus Christ, thereby seperating the sheep (believers) from the goats (non believers).

No problem with that.

Transubstantiation protects the Apostolic teaching against those who reject and or teach against the True presence of Jesus body, blood in His Eucharist. It does not and never defines this “mystical presence” of Jesus body, blood soul and divinity in the Mysterion (sacrament) Eucharist. Such a mystery can never be exhausted in a definition. In fact the Eucharist is so mysterious to Catholics that many names are attached here; “the bread of life”, “holy communion”, “sacrifice”, “wedding feast of the lamb”, “bread of heaven”, “paschal mystery”, “table of the Lord”, “the chalice” and “the altar”, “the offering” and “the oblation”, “the passion of the Lord”, “The presence”, as we know “thanksgiving” = “Eucharistia”, “Giving thanks”, “Eucharist” is what this highest of sacraments has come to be known in our day.

I can see why this has come to be. And I wouldn say that a confessional Lutheran, except for the metaphysical nature of Transubstantiation, would agree with all of this.

Transubstantiation never comes close to ever defining this mystery because it never exhausts this mystery in definition. Transubstantiation only defends and protects this mystery from ever falling into disbelief from science and every wind of doctrine that has come against this apostolic faith in the true presence or will ever come against the Eucharist

In summary Transubstantiation only helps our flesh to suspend its senses of bread and wine so that the soul can connect with the spiritual realities defined in spiritual terms to recieve this life giving bread from heaven to feed the soul of man so that he may have eternal life in Christ Jesus.

This is good, and I think we are seeing amongst Lutheran and Catholic theologians a growing recognition that our terminologies sometimes have masked our ever-agreement regarding His presence.

I learned the word transubstantiation when I was 7 years old. As a Child, although my senses told me I was tasting bread and wine, my heart and faith (soul) believed I just recieved my Lord Jesus, because Jesus said “this is my body”. Mark 10:15
Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child 2 will not enter it."

And I have always believed the same with Sacarmantal Union.

Peace be with you

And also with you,
Jon

 

[Newbie2]

Actually, I don’t know. I do know of parishes within the LCMS and the ELCA that do these things. there are een some that use bells and incense.

One doesn’t have to believe in Transub. to recognize the fact that, once consecrated, the bread is the body of Christ, as He said. Same with the wine - it is the blood of Christ. It is not a symbolic or merely spiritual presence. It IS His body and blood.

Hope my explanation above helps.

Jon

Re: bolded above, isn’t that the definition of transubstantiation…i.e. the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood? Maybe I’m missing a subtle point here, J.

 

[JonNC]

Re: bolded above, isn’t that the definition of transubstantiation…i.e. the bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood? Maybe I’m missing a subtle point here, J.

It is a subtle point, really. The difference (if there is one) between the bread and wine become His body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine are His body and blood, on the other. Lutherans won’t go into the substance and accidents aspect of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

There is a solid unity of belief amongst confessional Lutherans - as Melanchthon said. I have no doubt that all Lutherans, if properly catechized, and not influenced by Reformed views, as has happened here in America, will tell you that it is His body and blood.
The issue with Eucharistic adoration outside the sacramental act is in regards to Christ’s command for the blessed sacrament, that we are to eat and drink. Even in John 6, His call is that we eat and drink. There is noting wrong with adoration, in my view (in fact, there is value in it, as I see it), but this is above and beyond Christ’s command that we eat and drink.

Jon

Thanks for the explanation Jon. I think Eucharistic adoration is a logical extension of the fact that He is truly and substantially present, regardless of whether or not it is mentioned in the Bible. At least, however, I understand, from a strict reading, how one might reach the conclusion you presented.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for the explanation Jon. I think Eucharistic adoration is a logical extension of the fact that He is truly and substantially present, regardless of whether or not it is mentioned in the Bible. At least, however, I understand, from a strict reading, how one might reach the conclusion you presented.

Hi Steve,
Thanks for your understanding. And by the same willingness to understand, I think Eucharistic adoration can be a logical extension, as well. The Eucharist is, after all, Christ Himself, present for us in His body and blood.

Jon

 

[Erich]

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

Thanks for opening this thread back up… I wondered what it was I said that caused the original thread to be closed

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.

What I had in mind when I originally posted was, “there is no tradition of Eucharistic Adoration outside the context of the liturgy among Lutherans” (e.g. 24x7 adoration chapel, Corpus Christi processions, etc.) Until this post, I was not aware that there might be any Lutherans anywhere that practiced Eucharistic Adoration outside the context of the liturgy.

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.

I should clarify that the specific example I had in mind when I asked “what do they believe they’re receiving, if they also believe the Presence ends once the liturgy is over?” was, one congregation I know of uses lay people to bring the previously-consecrated elements to shut-ins.

I would imagine that a Lutheran pastor who believes/teaches that the Presence ends once the liturgy is over could simple re-say the words of institution for the Presence to “reappear” (for lack of a better term), and “all would be well” theologically speaking. I’m just not sure how it would “work” – in Lutheran theology – for a lay person to re-say the words of institution over elements that no longer have the Presence in, through, and under.

 

[JonNC]

=Erich;7177023]Thanks for opening this thread back up… I wondered what it was I said that caused the original thread to be closed

I don’t think Eric Hilbert would mind that, when I asked if I could rekindle this discussion, he said it was closed because of the age of the thread. So, it was nothing that anyone wrote.

What I had in mind when I originally posted was, “there is no tradition of Eucharistic Adoration outside the context of the liturgy among Lutherans” (e.g. 24x7 adoration chapel, Corpus Christi processions, etc.) Until this post, I was not aware that there might be any Lutherans anywhere that practiced Eucharistic Adoration outside the context of the liturgy.

OK, I see. It isn’t more than rare. The history of it, in my limited understanding, has to do with the Gnesio-Lutherans, who followed Luther on it, and the Phillippists, who followed Melanchthon. Melchanchthon opposed Adoration outside the sacramental act, and that POV generally won out. Luther had no problem with it, in general terms, but opposed Corpus Christi processions.

I should clarify that the specific example I had in mind when I asked “what do they believe they’re receiving, if they also believe the Presence ends once the liturgy is over?” was, one congregation I know of uses lay people to bring the previously-consecrated elements to shut-ins.

I would imagine that a Lutheran pastor who believes/teaches that the Presence ends once the liturgy is over could simple re-say the words of institution for the Presence to “reappear” (for lack of a better term), and “all would be well” theologically speaking. I’m just not sure how it would “work” – in Lutheran theology – for a lay person to re-say the words of institution over elements that no longer have the Presence in, through, and under.

It would not be the place of anyone outside the clergy to “re-say” the words of institution.
If I were to take the Eucharist to a shut-in, it would have already been consecrated.
Personally, if I were the receiver, I would would want it to be a pastor, who could hear my confession and grant absolution, prior to reception.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Quote:Gabriel of 12

I believe the fine line is drawn, in not the “True presence” between Catholics and (some?) Lutherans but when, where and how the discernment of the True presence of Jesus body and blood are made presence to the believer, and this question is close to disappearing “the validity of the Eucharist”? between Catholic and Lutheran communions.

 

[ndismyhome]

Hello all! I have noticed an issue that has come up in the discussion: does Lutheran practice reflect the Lutheran belief? Overall, I find that Lutherans do not do this. I am an ELCA Lutheran and it strikes me that if Christ is physically, truly present in the Elements, why is it ok to dribble them on the floor? The R Catholics in this discussion do have a point in bringing this to the light. Lex orandi lex creedeni est!
Also, Transubstantiation is a metaphysical explanation of how Communion “works” based on the metaphysics of Aristotle. Luther rightly points out that in any substantial change, the accidents would change (at least somewhat) as substances directly impact their accidental expression. Luther surmised that it was more pious to say that Christ is truly present in the Bread and Wine, but he tried to not give another metaphysical postulation of how this happened. Does any of this make sense?
In Christ,
ND

 

[Newbie2]

It is a subtle point, really. The difference (if there is one) between the bread and wine become His body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine are His body and blood, on the other. Lutherans won’t go into the substance and accidents aspect of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation.

Jon

I’m still confuzzled. If the bread and wine become the body and blood, from that point on they are the body and blood right?

So in the Catholic Eucharist, if there are any hosts not consumed, they remain the body and blood, and adoration makes sense. If there are any hosts “leftover” after a Lutheran Lord’s supper, they don’t remain the body and blood, at least as far as I remember from my LCMS catechism; adoration for such hosts wouldn’t make sense.

I’m missing something here, yes?

 

[Lutheranteach]

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.

My apologies for offending. I didn’t think I went as far as I obviously did. I do agree to the things you say. Perhaps I’ve become overly sensitive after being told I must quit my job, I’m only playing church on Sundays, my clergyman is pointless, etc. etc. That all said. I do think there are times when we all miss the big picture and get loss in the lesser details.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

We are looking at our viewpoint on common practices. This does not affect the way God works. Catholics have extraordinary ministers of communion who use pyxes to take hosts to those not able to attend Mass. I have done the same thing, using a communion kit that may sit on the altar during the service, but is always blessed by the pastor and the words of institution said over it. It is our practice in the ELCA to take communion to others as soon as is practical after the service.

In fact, a good friend, who is Baptist, recently went to the hospital with possible cardiac problems. The next day, my wife and I took him communion. Our church is only three blocks from the hospital. He was due to have a catheterization just minutes later. We talked to his surgeon and it was agreed that he would not take the bread. The look on his face when we gave him the wine was priceless. He told me later that he had a profound sense of peace going into the procedure. Though he was Baptist and we are Lutheran, it has no effect on how the Holy Spirit works.

If you say, wait a minute, the Catholic Church would not allow such a thing, then it is time to get the old CCC out and re-read it. If you are Lutheran, it wouldn’t hurt to get your catechism out and have another go at it, either. Time after time, it amazes me how close our practices and beliefs really are.

 

[lutherlic]

Your very welcome, and thanks for your kind words I love your summary which takes this mystery of the Eucharist language and understanding to another level. It reminded me of Pauls teaching similar to the definition of transubstantiation.

1Cor.2;9 But as it is written: “What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,” 10** this God has revealed to us through the Spirit.For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God. 11 Among human beings, who knows what pertains to a person except the spirit of the person that is within? Similarly, no one knows what pertains to God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we speak about them not with words taught by human wisdom, but with words taught by the Spirit, describing spiritual realities in spiritual terms.**

(Here’s pre-transubstantiation about Jesus words when He says “it is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail”)

14 **Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he cannot understand it, because it is judged spiritually. **15 The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to counsel him?” **But we have the mind of Christ. **

God bless you

Wow Gabriel, you are on a roll! This is a lot of good stuff. Thank you.

 

[SteveVH]

My apologies for offending. I didn’t think I went as far as I obviously did. I do agree to the things you say. Perhaps I’ve become overly sensitive after being told I must quit my job, I’m only playing church on Sundays, my clergyman is pointless, etc. etc. That all said. I do think there are times when we all miss the big picture and get loss in the lesser details.

No problem. I was remembering some of my posts on other threads and actually felt a little hypocritical after my remarks to you. We can all become a little over sensitive depending on circumstances. I appreciate your words and look forward to future discussion with you.

God bless.

 

[Erich]

It would not be the place of anyone outside the clergy to “re-say” the words of institution.

That’s what I expected, actually.

If I were to take the Eucharist to a shut-in, it would have already been consecrated.

That is the underlying reason for my question to begin with. Yes, the words of institution would have already been said over the elements… but, as another poster pointed out, lex orendi lex credendi.

I guess another way of asking my question would be, what is the (Lutheran) theological basis for believing that the Presence is still present after the conclusion of the liturgy for elements to be taken by lay persons to shut-ins, but not otherwise?