D
donnyblake
Guest
I was told that the Lutherans believe in The Real Presence, but that after the Mass the Eucharist returns back to bread and wine. Does anyone know the Lutherans belief/teaching? Thank you.
Does Lutheran Eucharist remain Body/Blood or revert back to bread/wine?
- Status
A
allofgrace
Guest
The Lutheran sect believes in CON-substantiation. This means that there is no change in the bread and wine but that Jesus just comes into the bread and wine in some spiritual way. They do not believe that the bread and wine EVER CHANGED from bread and wine.
Where did this doctrine come from?
It came from Martin Luther the founder of the Lutheran religion which he called “my gospel” or “my evangel.”
In his writings in the book “Bondage of the Will” you can read how he came up with this doctrine. I don’t have the book here now but basically he said that he had heard a very learned man speculate about what would happen if Jesus just came INTO the bread and win WITH it (Con means with). This is Luther’s statement: “I LIKED THAT BETTER.” He stated that that would call for less miracles - and Luther was happier with anything that moved away from the miraculous. He downplayed the miracles of the Bible to the point that he judged the books of the New Testament by their miracle content. Those with more miracles were of lesser importance.
Hope that helps.
T
Tomster
Guest
donnyblake,
The permanence of the presence of Christ was asserted by the Council of Trent against the error of Luther who, although he admitted the real presence, held that it began and ended with the reception of the sacrament by the faithful.
Tomster
L
lizaanne
Guest
In other words - Luther made stuff up because he liked it better. 
~Liza
~Liza
A
allofgrace
Guest
That’s about it, Liza. The fact is that he TELLS in his public writings that that’s what he did. Most Protestants aren’t aware of that fact.In other words - Luther made stuff up because he liked it better.
~Liza
He did the same thing with “by faith ALONE” - look up Luther’s Open Letter on Translating online and read it. The one on the Wittenburg Project is from a Lutheran source. The Catholic Church sent word to Luther that what he had done in his translation of the book of Romans into German was not acceptable. In Romans 3:28 he ADDED THE WORD “ALONE”.
Luther wrote back and said, “You go back and tell your papist that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” He stated that NO, the word ALONE/ SOLA was not there and that YES, he had added it. He stated “I, Dr. Luther WILL IT, and my will is enough.” He went on to say that he was a Doctor above all the papal doctors and “my opinion is just as good as the Thomists.” (he hated Thomas Aquinas).
Ask yourself what would happen if a Catholic Pope added a doctrine on these grounds. Every Protestant in the world would know it and yell bloody murder and yet they follow a man who did this without even investigating it. I’ve been called a liar when I told people this and yet they would not go back and look for themselves to see if what I said is true or not.
I urge you to look it up and see for yourselves; from my days as a SS teacher in the 1970s until today on my own Catholic Discussions group and Covenants of the Bible Study on Yahoo, I have stated (and it is part of my email signature)
"Do not believe anything I say here; find out for yourself."
R
rr1213
Guest
There is as least as much misunderstanding of Luther’s teachings by Catholics as Catholics are fond to assert regarding Protestant misunderstandings of Catholic teachings. This thread is proof of that.
For a discussion of Luther’s translation of Romans into German and the use of the words “faith alone” in German, please my post no. 7 in the thread below:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=178055
For a discussion of Luther’s translation of Romans into German and the use of the words “faith alone” in German, please my post no. 7 in the thread below:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=178055
R
rr1213
Guest
The Lutheran position regarding the Eucharist is not “consubstantiation”…that is a word used by Catholics to denigrate the doctrine. Instead, Lutherans believe in the Sacramental Union of the bread and wine with Christ’s body and blood. It is said that Christ is “in, with and under” the bread and wine. The bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood, yet the bread and wine do not disappear either…as the Catholic Church teaches.
D
donnyblake
Guest
and is the presence of Christ still there in remaining hosts after Mass? That was my original query. Thanks.
L
lizaanne
Guest
Yes - however the “presence of Christ” does not remain, Christ Himself remains. Big difference.
This is why such great care is taken after Mass to properly clean the vessels and altar cloths, and why we preserve the consecrated Eucharist in the tabernacle after Mass.
If Christ were not still present, then Eucharistic Adoration would be silly.
~Liza
B
bengal_fan
Guest
Christ then enters the body and becomes one with it. the nutritional value of the bread and wine (from a flesh standpoint) are not Christ. also, what i would excrete from my body on the other end is not Christ. the bread and wine remain bread and wine, but Christ becomes one with us. He enters us in, with and under the bread and wine, but is not expelled from us as the bread and wine are. kind of a gross way of thinking about it.
R
rr1213
Guest
Good question. I’m not sure what the Lutheran position on this issue is. If I recall correctly, there may be a division of Lutheran opinion. You may want to post the same question over in the Lutheran forum at CARM and see what sort of answers you get (but don’t link back to Catholic Answers…that would be against the rules).
S
scottm
Guest
^^ Ya, that.
Wow, I’ve never even thought about the OP’s question! Shame on me!
I’ll ask my Lutheran contacts.
B
bengal_fan
Guest
and idolotrous. i’m not saying that it is. i believe in the real presence. but my belief might not line up perfectly with yours.
L
lizaanne
Guest
Oh no, I totally agree with you. If it were only a piece of bread and we still continued to carry on with Adoration, then yes it would most certainly be misplaced and idolatrous. We only worship Christ in the Eucharist because He is truly there!
~Liza
B
bengal_fan
Guest
and, as a protestant, i have no problem with that. i know your heart (and the church’s teaching) behind it and it makes perfect sense to me. i just might not fall in line exactly with the practice of it, but i would never discourage worshiping Jesus. if some one, however, were just worshiping a piece of bread and BELIEVED that’s all it was, i would discourage that.
W
water
Guest
There is no reverting back to bread and wine because it is always bread and wine.
A
allofgrace
Guest
What I learned about Luther’s teachings was done from 1979 to 1991 AS A PROTESTANT. It was what I learned from reading LUTHER HIMSELF that sent me looking at what Catholics believe. After a couple of years studying Catholic beliefs I became Catholic.
If Protestants really got interested in and studied where their doctrines come from they could no longer be Protestant.
As one convert said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
R
rr1213
Guest
…that would be John Henry Newman…
S
Sixtus
Guest
While accepting fundamental differences between Lutherism and Catholicism at the heirachical level, if I visit say a High Anglican Church which believes in the Real Presence, then I always genuflect in front of the Tabernacle.
Who am I to say what is authentic and what is not?
Surely it would be arrogant to ignore and dismiss. Surely too, it is far better to genuflect to a piece of bread than to unwittinly ignore the Body of Christ.
A friend of mine when he was ordained an Anglican Rector, he took on a character. He was more than he was before. Consider a lawyer upon qualification remains the person s/he was before. An Anglican Rector also remains who he was but additionally takes on a special discernable character. Who therefore am I to deny that which I can discern?
C
Caesar
Guest
Keep in mind everyone that this concept is consubstantiation is false, even for the Lutherans. Their “Eucharist” is nothing but bread and wine. It is not the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ either phyiscally or spiritually regardless of what they believe.
- Status