I
iaskquestions
Guest
Did Martin Luther believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? If so, why don’t today’s non-Catholic Christians believe it?
Did Martin Luther believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? If so, why don't today's non-Catholic Christians believe it?
- Status
T
The_Catholic
Guest
Martin Luther believed in the real Presence, but did not think the bread actually became the Body, nor the wine actually the Blood. He thought of it as God being present within the burning bush to Moses. I forget the term he used.
Luther also thought he was establishing the “true” Church and dispised any other break offs from him.
Luther also thought he was establishing the “true” Church and dispised any other break offs from him.
G
gcnuss
Guest
Luther, from his Smalcald Articles, written in 1537:
Hope this sheds a bit of light on Luther. On the other had, Zwingli believed that Eucharist was only a memorial of Christ. Zwingli and those who followed him are the source of the memorialist view of the Eucharist.
He not explain how it comes to be, but only that it is.
Hope this sheds a bit of light on Luther. On the other had, Zwingli believed that Eucharist was only a memorial of Christ. Zwingli and those who followed him are the source of the memorialist view of the Eucharist.
D
donmaximuso27
Guest
As to the OP’s second question, there are many non-Catholics that believe in the Real Presence. Theologically, the Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran Churches teach Real Presence. However, from personal experience, I can say that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is slowly reforming its liturgy, and often places more emphasis on the sermon rather then Communion. Also, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is now dealing with further division due to the introduction of contemporary worship. High-church Lutherans believe in the importantce of the liturgy and its central role in invovling the faithful in Holy Communion, focusing their attention on Christ’s sacrifice at the altar. However, contemporary worship is increasing at a rapid rate, and its liturgy is created by individuals of each congregation. I have always believed, even when I was a Lutheran, that the traditional liturgy has a true focus on the Real Presence. However, the contemporary style fosters emotionalism and a focus on music and “flowery” prayers.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I would give a hearty agreement to these statements, don. As an LCMS Lutheran, I give to long and hard looks at the future of the Synod; our current president is directing the Synod in a hard bland American evangelical direction.
The ELCA is in fellowship with denominations that deny the Real Presence; the PCUSA, the UMC, the ECUSA, the UCC, and the Unitarians; the latter denies the Trinity altogether.
D
donmaximuso27
Guest
As a former member of the ELCA, I was extremely frustrated by these joint communions. As for the LCMS, I hope that the same fate does not await it.
reclaimingwalther.org/articles/jmc00042.htm
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
I think the LCMS is going in a different trajectory. The ELCA went liberal mainline; the LCMS is going contemporary, Southern-Baptist style evanjellyfishism.
A reduction in the importance of the Sacraments for salvation, jettisoning the historic liturgy; all the while maintaining political and social conservatism as if that is equivalent to theological conservatism
Some thoughts about this:
- The new LCMS hymnal maintains the older liturgical settings.
- Dr. A.L.Barry maitained that the Lord’s Supper is the center of Lutheran worship.
Jon
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
WELS!
Yes, the new hymnal is much more liturgical, and we can thank confessional Lutherans such as Robert Kolb, Charles Arand, and Paul McCain for that.
A.L. Barry was a confessional Lutheran. His sudden death during his presidency led the way to the current Lavendar Pope, Gerald Kieschnick, who is pushing the Ablaze! contemporary drivel.
G
gcnuss
Guest
Donmaximus,
I would disagree with the bolded sentence above. The liturgy itself is focused on Word and Sacrament. Neither should be set up as superior to the other. We hear the Word proclaimed and we receive our Lord in the Sacrament. One, without the other, is incomplete.
Now, I will say that there are Lutheran congregations where the expectation of the members is that the Word, proclaimed and heard, is all-important and that Holy Communion should be offered only occasionally (or it’s no longer special). I have had my battles with that mindset.
I agree wholeheartedly with you here. And that is just what I do in worship in the congregation I serve.
D
donmaximuso27
Guest
I agree that the traditional liturgy of the ELCA still has that balanced focus of Word and Sacrament. However, at least in my former congregation and the many that I visited, the contemporary service, which is becoming a norm in the ELCA, is taking away focus from Communion, stressing a focus on Word and dedicating many contemporary songs to the Word. Again, this is just what I have experienced in my former synod.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Lutherans care about Luther. I can’t imagine why anyone else would.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
Luther argued the divine presence ‘surrounded’ the event, that is the Eucharist. It was ‘aura’ of the ritual. Soon thereafter, Calvin argued that no, the ritual was strictly *symbolic. *
S
SIA
Guest
Newsflash: Many do!
N
NDfan
Guest
Luther used the term consubstantiation and not transubstantiation. The difference is that Luther believed the bread still existed but now had the presence of Christ. The same for the wine. The RCC teaches that the bread and wine cease to exist although in appearance it still smells, tastes, and looks like bread and wine.
Not sure if I agree here. Luther didn’t even want to break from Rome but was told to recant his statements or face excommunication. He wanted to affect change from within but couldn’t.
PEACE
S
SIA
Guest
exactly
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Luther never used the term consubstantiation. I would very much like to see one of his writings where he uses the word.
The UMC and ECUSA embrace the Real Presence.
This is a misinformed thread, IMO.
T
TriuneUnity
Guest
Where, in the doctrinal statements of the UMC is the Real Presence explicitly confirmed? The Articles of Religion state the following:Luther never used the term consubstantiation. I would very much like to see one of his writings where he uses the word.
The UMC and ECUSA embrace the Real Presence.
This is a misinformed thread, IMO.
“The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather is a sacrament of our redemption by Christ’s death; insomuch that, to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ; and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation, or the change of the substance of bread and wine in the Supper of our Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ, but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith. *(A denial of a corporeal presence that is received by mouth)*The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped.”
When you say the ECUSA embraces the real presence, are you meaning according to the 39 Articles?
B
BrianH
Guest
gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/default.html
gbod.org/worship/thisholymystery/petition.html
"The Wesleyan tradition affirms the reality of Christ’s presence, although it does not claim to be able to explain it fully. "
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
Brian posted the links I would have. The Real Presence ≠ Transubstantiation. The Articles were addressing Aristotelianism, not Real Presence. The eucharistic liturgies of the day, as well as today, make that pretty clear, I think.
- Status