Difference between Catholic/Lutheran communion?

[ProVobis]

Christ’s words are exactly what you stated, as He is holding bread in His hands and says, “this (meaning the bread) is my body.” He doesn’t go on to explain how, so it is a mystery. Lutherans endeavor to explain it no further than that. Therefore, what we receive isHis body.

Actually He does. But it seems to be lost in the Engllsh. That’s the problem.

 

[JonNC]

Sorry am late to conversation, but here is my research on Comparing Catholic and Lutheran Eucharist.

I will below, Marco, provide a website that quotes the history of Lutheran theologians, explaining why we reject now, and always have reject the term consubstantiation.
Having read your blog, which I found interesting and well done from a Catholic POV, just a couple of points.

1. it is the Reformed, historically, who accused us of confessing consubstantiation. Therefore, to quote the Reformed historian, Phillip Schaff, probably isn’t going to clarify things.
2. you commented that you can’t find Luther using the term “in, with, and under”. I believe the confessions only use the phrase once. “In and under” is more typical, or just under.

A couple of sites from Lutherans regarding the doctrine of the real presence.
stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html

pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2010/11/consubstantiation-receptionism-and.html

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Actually He does. But it seems to be lost in the Engllsh. That’s the problem.

Ok, I’ve read, admittedly in English, all three Gospel accounts, and what I come away with is - This is my body, this is the new covenant in my blood. Beyond that, what are we losing in the English?

Jon

 

[ProVobis]

Ok, I’ve read, admittedly in English, all three Gospel accounts, and what I come away with is - This is my body, this is the new covenant in my blood. Beyond that, what are we losing in the English?

Jon

The Greek and Latin gender reference of the demonstrative “this” which cannot be the bread. Haven’t you and I discussed this already in another forum?

 

[JonNC]

The Greek and Latin gender reference of the demonstrative “this” which cannot be the bread. Haven’t you and I discussed this already in another forum?

Not that I’m aware of. Even at that, even if Christ is not referencing the bread with “this”, He still does not go into any detail of how the mystery happens, the mystery being that when we receive, we are receiving His true body and blood.

Jon

 

[ProVobis]

Not that I’m aware of. Even at that, even if Christ is not referencing the bread with “this”, He still does not go into any detail of how the mystery happens, the mystery being that when we receive, we are receiving His true body and blood.

Jon

The mystery is there. However, in the Latin* “hoc” (in “hoc est enim corpus meum”) refers to “corpus.” If He meant “bread” or “panem” the demonstrative would have been “haec.” In the English the “this” is ambiguous but an Anglophone could easily (and mistakenly) connect the “this” with the bread; thus consubstantiation (bread is the body) would be believed.

• the Greek has a similar argument.

 

[Erich]

Now there are only two Lutheran synods that most American Lutherans belong to. LCMS and ELCA.

ELCA stats (from Wikipedia):

Congregations 10,008 (2010) - but nearly 600 congregations have left ELCA since 8/2009… that’s almost 5 a week.
Members 4,059,785 Baptized (2011)
3,444,021 Confirmed (2009)

LCMS stats (also from Wikipedia):

Congregations 6,158
Members 2,278,586 Baptized
1,764,024 Confirmed

WELS stats (from their own web site):

Congregations 1,278
Members 380,728 Baptized
300,665 Confirmed

Lutheran Churches in Mission for Christ (officially formed in 2001)

Congregations 808
Members The LCMC web site is silent in this regard, but at the WELS average of almost 300 baptized members per congregation that would be 242,000+ members, and at the ELCA average of just over 400 baptized members per congregation that would be 323,000+ members. Most of the LCMC’s growth has come at the expense of the ELCA.

North American Lutheran Church (officially formed in 2010)

Congregations 356
Members 135,000

It’s also likely that additional thousands of ELCA congregants quietly left their liberal congregations without a word, in typical Lutheran humility, but are still being counted as members on the rolls. I would expect the LCMC and NALC (and to a lesser extent LCMS) to continue reporting growth, and the ELCA to continue reporting the opposite.

 

[andrewstx]

ELCA stats (from Wikipedia):

Congregations 10,008 (2010) - but nearly 600 congregations have left ELCA since 8/2009… that’s almost 5 a week.
Members 4,059,785 Baptized (2011)
3,444,021 Confirmed (2009)

LCMS stats (also from Wikipedia):

Congregations 6,158
Members 2,278,586 Baptized
1,764,024 Confirmed

WELS stats (from their own web site):

Congregations 1,278
Members 380,728 Baptized
300,665 Confirmed

Lutheran Churches in Mission for Christ (officially formed in 2001)

Congregations 808
Members The LCMC web site is silent in this regard, but at the WELS average of almost 300 baptized members per congregation that would be 242,000+ members, and at the ELCA average of just over 400 baptized members per congregation that would be 323,000+ members. Most of the LCMC’s growth has come at the expense of the ELCA.

North American Lutheran Church (officially formed in 2010)

Congregations 356
Members 135,000

It’s also likely that additional thousands of ELCA congregants quietly left their liberal congregations without a word, in typical Lutheran humility, but are still being counted as members on the rolls. I would expect the LCMC and NALC (and to a lesser extent LCMS) to continue reporting growth, and the ELCA to continue reporting the opposite.

There are two churches in the area who left ELCA, but I have no idea if they joined another Synod or are now independent.

I have an idea that they may be independent, both were founded by a strong Norwegian Pastor who was over both congregations in twin cities.

 

[JonNC]

The mystery is there. However, in the Latin* “hoc” (in “hoc est enim corpus meum”) refers to “corpus.” If He meant “bread” or “panem” the demonstrative would have been “haec.” In the English the “this” is ambiguous but an Anglophone could easily (and mistakenly) connect the “this” with the bread; thus consubstantiation (bread is the body) would be believed.

• the Greek has a similar argument.

But “bread is my Body” is not consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is more likely bread mixed with body.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

But “bread is my Body” is not consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is more likely bread mixed with body.

Jon

Jon what does the Pastor say when he distributes Holy Communion?

 

[steido01]

Jon what does the Pastor say when he distributes Holy Communion?

Page 194-199 (Page 54-59 of the pdf): lsb.cph.org/samples/LSB_Sampler.pdf

“Take, eat; this is the true body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, given into death for your sins.” (Amen)

“Take, drink; this is the true blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Amen)

“The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen and preserve you in body and soul to life everlasting. Depart + in peace.” (Amen)

 

[MaryT777]

Page 194-199 (Page 54-59 of the pdf): lsb.cph.org/samples/LSB_Sampler.pdf

“Take, eat; this is the true body of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, given into death for your sins.” (Amen)

“Take, drink; this is the true blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Amen)

“The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen and preserve you in body and soul to life everlasting. Depart + in peace.” (Amen)

Thanks: at the Our Redeemer LCMS in this town they say “in with and under” in this statement somewhere. Is that unusual?

 

[JonNC]

Jon what does the Pastor say when he distributes Holy Communion?

Usually, “the body of Christ, given for you”, or a variation.
Usually, in our parish, communion assistants help with the chalice, “the true blood of Christ, shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” or a variation.

Jon

 

[ProVobis]

Thanks: at the Our Redeemer LCMS in this town they say “in with and under” in this statement somewhere. Is that unusual?

You may be on to something there.

Con (with) + sub (under) + stantis (stands)

as opposed to

Trans (across) + sub (under) + stantis (stands)

 

[JonNC]

Thanks: at the Our Redeemer LCMS in this town they say “in with and under” in this statement somewhere. Is that unusual?

This is a highly unusual and questionable practice because:

1. Christ made no such statement. He said “this is my body”.
2. the Lutheran doctrine, as a result of Christ’s words, is the real presence, not sacramental union.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Thanks: at the Our Redeemer LCMS in this town they say “in with and under” in this statement somewhere. Is that unusual?

I’ve never heard that said during the distribution. The timing is, indeed, unusual.

Are you sure the pastor doesn’t say something about “in, with and under” some time before the Words of Institution, as an explanation/announcement of why non-Lutherans are discouraged from receiving the Sacrament?

 

[MaryT777]

I’ve never heard that said during the distribution. The timing is, indeed, unusual.

Are you sure the pastor doesn’t say something about “in, with and under” some time before the Words of Institution, as an explanation/announcement of why non-Lutherans are discouraged from receiving the Sacrament?

Yes it was something like this is the true body and blood…“in with and under” the bread and wine. That was the former Pastor who was my friend though. I will find out
what the new pastor says. I assumed it was to differentiate between Lutheran and Catholic Holy Communion because he was very much into wanting to differentiate the two.

Mary.

Jon or Don…
would you say there is a substantial difference between the understanding between Catholics and Lutherans on Holy Communion or not from your point of view.

 

[JonNC]

You may be on to something there.

Con (with) + sub (under) + stantis (stands)

as opposed to

Trans (across) + sub (under) + stantis (stands)

What is mean by the phrase ," in, with, and under", from Herman Sasse:

It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say. [This is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, (Adelaide, South Australia: Openbook Publishers, 1959) 129.]
.

Jon

 

[MarcoPolo]

it is the Reformed, historically, who accused us of confessing consubstantiation. Therefore, to quote the Reformed historian, Phillip Schaff, probably isn’t going to clarify things.

That may be unless they read the context of Schaff’s quotation, which says the term consubstantiation when meant in a particular sense, and how Lutherans reject the term for other reasons - but I will keep your comment in mind in the future. The reason I went through the etymology of the term consubstantiation and compared it to what Lutheran texts actually say is to determine if Lutheran teaching harmonizes with the term “consubstantation.” I concluded that consubstantiation etymological harmonizes with the sense that the bread and wine are “with” the substance of Christ’s body, if not “in” or “under.” When speaking of the Lutheran teaching, I personally tend to borrow the “in, with, and under” phrase common in Lutheran texts rather than claim for them the term consubstantiation to which they are averted, even if I think the etymology bears some accuracy.

 

[JonNC]

That may be unless they read the context of Schaff’s quotation, which says the term consubstantiation when meant in a particular sense, and how Lutherans reject the term for other reasons. The reason I went through the etymology of the term consubstantiation and compared it to what Lutheran texts actually say is to determine if Lutheran teaching harmonizes with the term “consubstantation.” I concluded that consubstantiation etymological harmonizes with the sense that the bread and wine are “with” the substance of Christ’s body, if not “in” or “under.” When speaking of the Lutheran teaching, I personally tend to borrow the “in, with, and under” phrase common in Lutheran texts rather than claim for them the term consubstantiation to which they are averted, even if I think the etymology bears some accuracy.

Take a moment, my friend, to read through the link I provided. While it is not I depth essays, etc. it speaks strongly to some of the things in your blog.
BTW, I appreciate that fact that you make every effort to accurately reflect what we believe. I think our view, which has no metaphysical construct to it, may be difficult for some Catholics to grasp, coming from the belief of Transubstantiation

Jon