Communion: Catholic VS Lutheran

[cmarco]

First a little background: I am in college, and I am my roommate’s Confirmation sponcer. She “grew up” Catholic, in that her family went to Mass a couple times a year. But I and others have managed to bring her back into the community and to the Church, and she has decided to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation at the end of this semester.

Unfortunately, I am having a very hard time explaining to her the differences between the Eucharist and other Protestant forms of communion. She understands that some, such as Baptists, have a completely different perspective on communion and does not compare that to the Mass (apples and oranges).

But, she went to a Lutheran service today, and saw all the similarities between Catholics and Lutherans which is okay in it’s own right… but she doesn’t understand the difference between the two types of communion, and I’m having a horrible time getting all the facts straightened out in a way I can explain it to her.

Part of my argument was the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church and how, since Lutherians broke away from that, their communion does not consists of the Real Presence that they believe it does (?) because it is not from the succession of Peter, etc etc. And… that didn’t help much. I’m pretty sure I didn’t explain it accurately enough.
**
Main question:**
What are the differences between Catholic Eucharist and Lutheran communion??

Thanks for all your help.

~ Carrie

 

[palmas85]

cmarco:

First a little background: I am in college, and I am my roommate’s Confirmation sponcer. She “grew up” Catholic, in that her family went to Mass a couple times a year. But I and others have managed to bring her back into the community and to the Church, and she has decided to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation at the end of this semester.

Unfortunately, I am having a very hard time explaining to her the differences between the Eucharist and other Protestant forms of communion. She understands that some, such as Baptists, have a completely different perspective on communion and does not compare that to the Mass (apples and oranges).

But, she went to a Lutheran service today, and saw all the similarities between Catholics and Lutherans which is okay in it’s own right… but she doesn’t understand the difference between the two types of communion, and I’m having a horrible time getting all the facts straightened out in a way I can explain it to her.

Part of my argument was the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church and how, since Lutherians broke away from that, their communion does not consists of the Real Presence that they believe it does (?) because it is not from the succession of Peter, etc etc. And… that didn’t help much. I’m pretty sure I didn’t explain it accurately enough.
**
Main question:**
What are the differences between Catholic Eucharist and Lutheran communion??

Thanks for all your help.

~ Carrie

Catholics believe that during the consecration prayers the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ Jesus, fully present under both forms. It is not symbolic and when it is received by the communicant it exists as the body and blood of Christ. It remains so if not consumed and is kept in the tabernacle. Simple explanation.

The Lutherans see communion as symbolic in most aspects, although they believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ WHEN it is consumed and not before. Further, the hosts that are not eaten are considered to be merely bread and the wine just wine. It is a combination of the prayers and YOUR belief that make the change. Another simple explanation.

In other protestant congregation communion is symbolic.

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

Palmas85,
With all due respect, and no intention to inflame; I wish to make a couple of corrections.

The Lutherans see communion as symbolic in most aspects, although they believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ WHEN it is consumed and not before

.
Lutheran’s do NOT consider any part of the Eucharist symbolic.

Further, the hosts that are not eaten are considered to be merely bread and the wine just wine. It is a combination of the prayers and YOUR belief that make the change. Another simple explanation.

This also is not correct. Bread and wine are kept to administer to those who cannot attend due to illness, etc; and they are also disposed of in a reverent manner, because we can’t know definitely when Our Lord ceases to be present in them.
lca.org.au/resources/cticr/dsto2reve2b.pdf

As to the validity of the Eucharistic meal in the Lutheran Church, I beg to differ, but have no intention of trying to defend this. As we are both strong in our respective faiths, we could argue this until the cows come home, but I doubt it would change either of our minds.

Peace and love to you and your loved ones.

 

[Brenda_V]

The main difference (and I know Lutherans will argue this with me) is that they lost Apostolic Succession, their ministers no longer have the ordination to be able to confect the Eucharist.

Now as for how they believe, first and foremost they believe Jesus is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity but so is the Bread and wine. This is actually where it gets kind of tricky, as Catholics we believe in Transubstantiation - the bread and wine are no longer present except in the Accidents (you will need to search this as I, a Cradle Catholic who has never stopped learning, have a hard time explaining this). Lutherans on the other hand believe in Co-substantiation (I believe that is the correct term), in other words, Jesus becomes present but He does not replace the bread and wine, he just joins them.

Recently there was some talk between Lutherans and Catholics (Rome) about the differences and for the most part they are very small. Much of what we believe is the same. The only problem is the small differences are only in number but not in importance

so, really it all boils down to is Apostolic Succession, our Priests have all been ordained by a Bishop who was ordained by a valid Pope who is in direct line to Peter.

Now, having said all this, there may be some Lutheran synods who no longer believe in the Real Presence, I am not familiar enough with all of them but if I were to ask my Lutheran in-laws I would be told it is just a symbol, I ask my Lutheran husband and I would be told differently. Neither belong to one of the mainline, commonly known synods though.

Brenda V. who probably just muddied the waters here

 

[catsrus]

I grew up and was catachized evangelical lutheran.
I was taught, by the pastor, that communion was symbolic only. It was offered on the 1st Sunday of the month only.
This was in 1963 but I haven’t understood, from my lutheran former mother-in-law, that anything has changed.

 

[Brenda_V]

catsrus:

I grew up and was catachized evangelical lutheran.
I was taught, by the pastor, that communion was symbolic only. It was offered on the 1st Sunday of the month only.
This was in 1963 but I haven’t understood, from my lutheran former mother-in-law, that anything has changed.

Catsrus - my in-laws belong to the Free Evangelical Lutherans so they are a break-off so to speak of the Evangelical Lutherans which would explain their views. My husband on the other hand is a member of the Church of the Lutheran Confession which is a break off of the Wisconsin Synod (oh, it can get sooo confusing!)

Anyway, don’t want to hi-jack this thread. So let me suggest that our OP check Catholic Answers and EWTN web-sites for possible writings helping to explain this better than I did or anyone else might.

Brenda V.

 

[LatinCat]

cmarco:

First a little background: I am in college, and I am my roommate’s Confirmation sponcer. She “grew up” Catholic, in that her family went to Mass a couple times a year. But I and others have managed to bring her back into the community and to the Church, and she has decided to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation at the end of this semester.

Unfortunately, I am having a very hard time explaining to her the differences between the Eucharist and other Protestant forms of communion. She understands that some, such as Baptists, have a completely different perspective on communion and does not compare that to the Mass (apples and oranges).

But, she went to a Lutheran service today, and saw all the similarities between Catholics and Lutherans which is okay in it’s own right… but she doesn’t understand the difference between the two types of communion, and I’m having a horrible time getting all the facts straightened out in a way I can explain it to her.

Part of my argument was the Apostolic Tradition of the Catholic Church and how, since Lutherians broke away from that, their communion does not consists of the Real Presence that they believe it does (?) because it is not from the succession of Peter, etc etc. And… that didn’t help much. I’m pretty sure I didn’t explain it accurately enough.
**
Main question:**
What are the differences between Catholic Eucharist and Lutheran communion??

Thanks for all your help.

~ Carrie

It is very simple. Catholics believe in transubstantiation in which the very substance of the bread and wine are transformed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus, while the accidents (outward appearance and physical behavior) appear as those of bread and wine. Lutherans believe in con-substantiation in which Jesus becomes present along side the bread and wine of communion but the bread and wine do not become Jesus. The Catholic view is scriptural and the Lutheran one is not. Jesus said, “This IS my body” not “My body is in this”. Furthermore, since the Lutherans left the Catholic Church and their ministers did not maintian Apostolic succession, they do not possess the authority to consecrate the Eucharist, so even though they believe is some sort of real presence, there really is none in their Eucharist. Theirs is just bread and wine. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Euchrist is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ, God the Son, the second person of the Most Holy Trinity.

 

[leaner]

Brenda V.:

Recently there was some talk between Lutherans and Catholics (Rome) about the differences and for the most part they are very small. Much of what we believe is the same. The only problem is the small differences are only in number but not in importance

I thought also that purgatory is “not a lutheran thing” (for lack of a better way to say it…)

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

I am still learning, but I can’t see that the Lutheran view is wholly without scriptural back-up. If you look at John 13:27, it say that as soon as Judas took the bread, which had been dipped in sauce, Satan entered into him. Why would this be different for us receiving Our Lord through the consecrated bread and wine? Jesus instigated both actions and we are told that the bread was still bread with Judas so it could still be bread with Jesus. It’s a game of semantics; I don’t really care how it happens; the fact that He gives us this sacrament is what is important. As I said in my last post; with all due respect, and no malice, I beg to differ on the subject of Apostolic Succession, but no point arguing about it when neither party will change their mind.**

** **

 

[LatinCat]

I am still learning, but I can’t see that the Lutheran view is wholly without scriptural back-up. If you look at John 13:27, it say that as soon as Judas took the bread, which had been dipped in sauce*,* Satan entered into him. Why would this be different for us receiving Our Lord through the consecrated bread and wine? Jesus instigated both actions and we are told that the bread was still bread with Judas so it could still be bread with Jesus. It’s a game of semantics; I don’t really care how it happens; the fact that He gives us this sacrament is what is important. As I said in my last post; with all due respect, and no malice, I beg to differ on the subject of Apostolic Succession, but no point arguing about it when neither party will change their mind.

** **

Catholics often refer to the Eucharist as bread, not because it is literally bread but because it looks like bread and becasue is truely “the bread of life”. But we must not forget, Christ said, “This, (the loaf in his hands) is my body”. not “My body is in this”. Furthermore, the fathers of the Church call the Eucharist Christ’s body. They never mention any idea of Consubstantiation.

 

[RobNY]

LatinCat:

Catholics often refer to the Eucharist as bread, not because it is literally bread but because it looks like bread and becasue is truely “the bread of life”. But we must not forget, Christ said, “This, (the loaf in his hands) is my body”. not “My body is in this”. Furthermore, the fathers of the Church call the Eucharist Christ’s body. They never mention any idea of Consubstantiation.

Although it is very tempting to call the Lutheran belief consubstantiation, I’ve found that they tend to rather dislike the term. They tend to be opposed to any type of terminology being applied to it, which is frustrating because it makes discussion harder. Of course, it doesn’t make much sense for the Lutherans to want to adopt that type of philosophy about accidents and substances, because the philosophy simply doesn’t permit two substances to coexist at once, together.

Lutheran’s do NOT consider any part of the Eucharist symbolic.

Which is certainly a good thing.

This also is not correct. Bread and wine are kept to administer to those who cannot attend due to illness, etc; and they are also disposed of in a reverent manner, because we can’t know definitely when Our Lord ceases to be present in them.
lca.org.au/resources/cticr/dsto2reve2b.pdf

Yes, I found this idea fascinating. That is, that it must be received and that if it isn’t that Christ eventually disappears from the consecrated elements. The idea cropped up here. I find it peculiar, but I would imagine you’d say that about some Catholic beliefs.

As to the validity of the Eucharistic meal in the Lutheran Church, I beg to differ, but have no intention of trying to defend this. As we are both strong in our respective faiths, we could argue this until the cows come home, but I doubt it would change either of our minds.

I see, yes. I won’t drag you into an apostolic succession debate. I’ll just say that, in lieu of apostolic succession, I’ve never seen a compelling reason to find proper authority to fulfill the function, i.e., I don’t find the particular Lutheran flavor of the priesthood of all believers to be convincing. I have a feeling that you’re right, we won’t change each other’s minds, but you could always do a search under my name for ‘priesthood,’ if you’re interested in seeing what I’ve had to say before.

But, she went to a Lutheran service today, and saw all the similarities between Catholics and Lutherans which is okay in it’s own right… but she doesn’t understand the difference between the two types of communion, and I’m having a horrible time getting all the facts straightened out in a way I can explain it to her.

What you always need to ask is this… by what authority? As a human being, the authority to call down the Holy Spirit to sanctify the gifts simply isn’t innate. It’s not just something that we’re born with. If we don’t have the authority to do it, where do we get it? Catholics and Lutherans have two *very *divergent views on this. Catholics see the authority coming from apostolic succession and the transferral of Holy Orders. Lutherans reject Holy Orders and instead believe that everyone is granted the authority of what the Catholics call the ministerial priesthood by virtue of their baptism. In other words, every Lutheran pretty much has the authority to fulfill the functions of a priest. The difference is that not ever Lutheran is called to function as a priest. Contrast this with the Catholic Church where only those who are ordained have the authority and can function as a priest.

Ask your friend. If at the Catholic Mass the priest hadn’t been ordained, or if a layperson went up to the altar to consecrate the elements, would she believe that the elements had become the Body and Blood of Christ? This is virtually what happens in a Lutheran church (from the Catholic perspective), a layman attempts to consecrate the elements. Hence, there is no Real Presence.

Of course, there are other important differences too. Lutherans utterly reject the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist. Catholics can’t do that. Quite simply, the Fathers recognized it, and we’re going to recognize it too. Luther and all of the protestants railed against it.

There’s, of course, more stuff, but I can’t think of anything else off of the top of my head. I hope my characterizations of Lutheran beliefs have been fair-- please correct me if they haven’t been.

 

[PROUD_2_B_RC]

+JMJ+

Lutherans as it was stated above believe in CON-Substantiation,that is where the body and blood are present also with the bread and wine.But as the Catholic Church teaches this not true.We teach Transubstantiation full change once consecrated to the Body,Blood,Soul,and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.Futher more they do NOT have apostolic bishops and therefore do not have the priesthood,and if they do not have the priesthood they can NOT have the Eucharist.

God bless you and Mary keep you!

 

[findinghumility]

The answer is that since Annabale Bugnini destoyed the historic traditional notion of “sacrifice of the Mass” with the protestantized Novus Ordo table ministry, there is really not a dimes worth of differenct between the conciliar Church’s Communion and that of the Lutherans.

 

[warrior71]

Nun_ofthe_Above:

Palmas85,
With all due respect, and no intention to inflame; I wish to make a couple of corrections.

.
Lutheran’s do NOT consider any part of the Eucharist symbolic.

This also is not correct. Bread and wine are kept to administer to those who cannot attend due to illness, etc; and they are also disposed of in a reverent manner, because we can’t know definitely when Our Lord ceases to be present in them.
lca.org.au/resources/cticr/dsto2reve2b.pdf

As to the validity of the Eucharistic meal in the Lutheran Church, I beg to differ, but have no intention of trying to defend this. As we are both strong in our respective faiths, we could argue this until the cows come home, but I doubt it would change either of our minds.

Peace and love to you and your loved ones.

Before I answered this question I spoke with a Lutheran Minister and two of my co workers, both Lutherans. They all said that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ when it is consumed, not before. They also said that the real presence did not remain after the communion service was ended. I merely repeated that which I thought to be true. When I brought this up with them after reading your response, they maintained that the information they gave me was correct and is understood as such by the Lutheran Church at large.

Is there currently some disagreement in the Lutheran Church about this? .I know that Luther himself backed away from Transubstantiation so when did the Lutheran Church accept it? Was it the result of ecumenical dialogue or did the Church decide Luthers position was wrong?

 

[palmas85]

Nun_ofthe_Above:

Palmas85,
With all due respect, and no intention to inflame; I wish to make a couple of corrections.

.
Lutheran’s do NOT consider any part of the Eucharist symbolic.

This also is not correct. Bread and wine are kept to administer to those who cannot attend due to illness, etc; and they are also disposed of in a reverent manner, because we can’t know definitely when Our Lord ceases to be present in them.
lca.org.au/resources/cticr/dsto2reve2b.pdf

As to the validity of the Eucharistic meal in the Lutheran Church, I beg to differ, but have no intention of trying to defend this. As we are both strong in our respective faiths, we could argue this until the cows come home, but I doubt it would change either of our minds.

Peace and love to you and your loved ones.

I submit the following pasage:

They confess, in accordance with the words of Irenaeus, that there are two things in this sacrament, one heavenly and the other earthly. Therefore they maintain and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, distributed, and received. And although they deny a transubstantiation (that is, an essential change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ) and do not believe that the body and blood of Christ are locally enclosed in the bread, or are in some other way permanently united with it apart from the use of the sacrament, they grant that through sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. For they do not maintain that the body of Christ is present apart from the use, as when the bread is laid aside or reserved in the tabernacle or carried about and exposed in procession, as happens in the papacy (FC SD VII, 14-15) [21]

This quote is from the Wittenberg Project, a Lutheran Theological Document, The Theory and Practice of the Lords Supper Part Two. It seems to indicate that Lutherans do not believe that the real presence exists outside of the Communion Service. The same document also states that when communion is brought to one outside the asembly the prayers of consecration need to be repeated. This kind of re-enforces what my sources, two Lutheran Chaplains and three elders told me about Lutheran Communion practices and beliefs before I posted my response.

 

[Catholic_Heart]

<<<

palmas85:

Catholics believe that during the consecration prayers the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ Jesus, fully present under both forms. It is not symbolic and when it is received by the communicant it exists as the body and blood of Christ. It remains so if not consumed and is kept in the tabernacle. Simple explanation.

The Lutherans see communion as symbolic in most aspects, although they believe that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ WHEN it is consumed and not before. Further, the hosts that are not eaten are considered to be merely bread and the wine just wine. It is a combination of the prayers and YOUR belief that make the change. Another simple explanation.>>>

This is not quite correct…Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation…The bread and wine DO NOT become the Body and Blood…But, Jesus does become present within the bread and wine…Con…means beside…The bread and wine, and the Body and Blood exist beside each other.

While the Luthereran “service” is similar to the Mass, there is no Eucharistic Prayer, or Canon, and the words spoken are not a Consecration, but “words of institution”.

I was once a Lutheran, and actually heard my Pastor ridicule the Catholic belief in transubstantiation…And, I have a Lutheran freind who insists that the Lutheran belief in re. to the Eucharist is the same as the Catholic one, but I know it is not.

Most other Protestant denominations regard the bread and wine (ususally grape juice) to be mere symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood…However, I did hear a Church of Christ minister refer to the bread and grapejuice as the Body and Blood of Christ…

 

[LatinCat]

palmas85:

I submit the following pasage:

They confess, in accordance with the words of Irenaeus, that there are two things in this sacrament, one heavenly and the other earthly. Therefore they maintain and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, distributed, and received. And although they deny a transubstantiation (that is, an essential change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ) and do not believe that the body and blood of Christ are locally enclosed in the bread, or are in some other way permanently united with it apart from the use of the sacrament, they grant that through sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. For they do not maintain that the body of Christ is present apart from the use, as when the bread is laid aside or reserved in the tabernacle or carried about and exposed in procession, as happens in the papacy (FC SD VII, 14-15) [21]

This quote is from the Wittenberg Project, a Lutheran Theological Document, The Theory and Practice of the Lords Supper Part Two. It seems to indicate that Lutherans do not believe that the real presence exists outside of the Communion Service. The same document also states that when communion is brought to one outside the asembly the prayers of consecration need to be repeated. This kind of re-enforces what my sources, two Lutheran Chaplains and three elders told me about Lutheran Communion practices and beliefs before I posted my response.

They do not agree with Iraneaus simply because Iranaeus speeks of the earthly and the hevenly in the Eucharist. Perhaps by earthly they are refering to earthly ACCIDENTS, that is, to the earthly APPEARANCE and PHYISICAL BEHAVIOR of the Eucharist and not that the substance of the Eucharist remained earthly. Furthermore, Iraneaus believed that Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ. As Iraneaus states of the bread and wine, “[they]…become the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ.” You see there is an ontological change. The bread and wine BECOME that which is the body and blood of Christ. That is transubstantiation, not con-substantiation.

 

[LatinCat]

No replies to my quote from Iranaeus? Guess that settles the issue.

 

[Micki]

Jesus Christ is PHYSICALLY present in the Eucharist in the Catholic Church? Do Lutherans teach this or would they say He is spiritually present in their Holy Communion?

Micki

 

[RobNY]

Micki:

Jesus Christ is PHYSICALLY present in the Eucharist in the Catholic Church? Do Lutherans teach this or would they say He is spiritually present in their Holy Communion?

Micki

Dear Micki,

For reasons that may be a bit too convoluted to get into on this thread, ‘physically,’ may not be the best word to use when describing the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Good words are truly, really and substantially, as well as sacramentally. Please refer to this thread for a discussion of it.

So yes, Jesus Christ is present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist-- truly, really and substantially present.

Lutherans profess that Christ is also present bodily in the Eucharist as well, as far as I know.