Does Lutheran Eucharist remain Body/Blood or revert back to bread/wine?

[Sr_Sally]

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

Lutheran churches to do reserve the remains of the blessed cup and bread. The wine is poured out (directly into the ground) and the crumbs are left for the birds. So after the service and the after all present have consummed, the remains are no longer “in, with, and under” Christ.

 

[allofgrace]

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?

Who therefore am I to deny that which I can discern?

I was Episcopalian after I left my Calvinist sect; let’s look at the Thirty Nine Articles of the Episcopal / Anglican communions and let them tell us whether it is actually the Real Presence / actually what it comes down to is the real ABSENCE …

Article XXVIII
Of the Lord’s Supper
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 it 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 the 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 an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Article XXIX
Of the wicked which do not eat the body of Christ, in the use of the Lord’s Supper
The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as S. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.

Article XXX
Of Both Kinds
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both parts of the Lord’s sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Article XXXI
Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross
The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.

 

[rr1213]

I was Episcopalian after I left my Calvinist sect; let’s look at the Thirty Nine Articles of the Episcopal / Anglican communions and let them tell us whether it is actually the Real Presence / actually what it comes down to is the real ABSENCE …

Article XXVIII
Of the Lord’s Supper
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 it 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 the 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 an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.

Article XXIX
Of the wicked which do not eat the body of Christ, in the use of the Lord’s Supper
The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as S. Augustine saith) the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing.

Article XXX
Of Both Kinds
The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the lay people; for both parts of the Lord’s sacrament, by Christ’s ordinance and commandment, ought to be ministered to all Christian men alike.

Article XXXI
Of the one oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross
The offering of Christ once made is the perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual, and there is none other satisfaction for sin but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.

True, but there are an awful lot of Anglicans who do not hold to the 39 Articles. In the Episcopal Church, for example, they are simply listed at the end of the BCP as a historical documents. Conservative evangelicals within the Episcopal Church probably look to them more than anyone else.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

There is no reverting back to bread and wine because it is always bread and wine.

In fairness, the OP is asking what Lutherans believe - not what we believe about their communion.

I share your thinking on this matter, but the OP asked what they think about it themselves - not what I think about it.

 

[Tomster]

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.

Exactly !

 

[allofgrace]

True, but there are an awful lot of Anglicans who do not hold to the 39 Articles. In the Episcopal Church, for example, they are simply listed at the end of the BCP as a historical documents. Conservative evangelicals within the Episcopal Church probably look to them more than anyone else.

Exactly!! Some Anglicans want to see themselves as more Catholics than Catholics. This is what I thought as well when I left my Calvinist sect and went to the Continuing Episcopal communion that retained the 1928 Prayer Book. But they are just fooling themselves. They have no valid priesthood to confect the sacrament.

I agree that there are many who don’t hold to the 39 Articles but what that says is “I’ll do it my way” which is pride. What you write above just reinforces the charge that the Episcopalians are “fence sitters.” I got a lot of splinters in my back side in my ten years there and finally made an honest woman of myself by coming into the Catholic Church in April, 1993. That can’t happen in the Catholic Church - THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH is set in stone (Tradition) and dissenters are dissenters not just faithful Episcopalians with a better idea.

 

[rr1213]

THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH is set in stone (Tradition)…

…except of course when it “develops”…

 

[Contarini]

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.

That is the general Lutheran view. I am not aware of any evidence that Luther himself taught that the Presence ended, although since he believed that in some sense Christ was always present (yes, in a bodily manner) in everything but that the presence was only accessible during the Eucharist, it probably wasn’t an issue for him.

Contrary to what some have said, Luther’s view was not that the presence was only spiritual–he hated that language, and in fact was more opposed to it than Aquinas or other defenders of the classic theory of transubstantiation. He believed that Christ’s real, glorified body was really present, but that it was present along with the bread and wine rather than the elements being transformed.

I do not see any force in the claim that Eucharistic Adoration would be idolatrous if Luther were correct. If both Christ and bread are present, and one is intending to worship Christ, then one is not committing idolatry.

Edwin

 

[Lampo]

Are there any documented instances of Lutheran Eucharistic miracles?

 

[allofgrace]

Contrary to what some have said, Luther’s view was not that the presence was only spiritual–he hated that language, and in fact was more opposed to it than Aquinas or other defenders of the classic theory of transubstantiation. He believed that Christ’s real, glorified body was really present, but that it was present along with the bread and wine rather than the elements being transformed.

Edwin

Let’s let LUTHER tell us how he changed his beliefs from transubstantiation to consubstantiation in his own words from Schaaf’s “History of the Christian Church,” Volume VII, found at
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.ii.vii.iv.html

Schaaf writes “Luther rejected, in his work on the “Babylonish Captivity of the Church” (1520), the doctrine of the mass, transubstantiation, and the withdrawal of the cup, as strongholds of the Papal tyranny. From this position he never receded.”

In the same work he clearly intimated his own view, which he had learned from Pierre d’Ailly, Cardinal of Cambray (Cameracensis),

Schaaf quotes Luther in “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” "Formerly, when I (Luther) was imbibing the scholastic theology, the Cardinal of Cambray gave me occasion for reflection, by arguing most acutely, in the Fourth Book of the Sentences, ]that it would be much more probable, and that fewer superfluous miracles would have to be introduced, if real bread and real wine, and not only their accidents, were understood to be upon the altar, unless the Church had determined the contrary.
Afterwards, when I saw what the church was, which had thus determined,—namely, the Thomistic/Aristotelian Church,—I became bolder; and, whereas I had been before in great straits of doubt, *** I now at length established my conscience in the former opinion:* namely, that there were real bread and real wine, in which were the real flesh and real blood of Christ in no other manner and in no less degree than the other party assert them to be under the accidents.**

Why should not Christ be able to include his body within the substance of bread, as well as within the accidents? Fire and iron, two different substances, are so mingled in red-hot iron that every part of it is both fire and iron.

*** Why may not the glorious body of Christ much more be in every part of the substance of the bread? … I rejoice greatly, that, at least among the common people, there remains a simple faith in this sacrament. They neither understand nor argue whether there are accidents in it or substance, but believe, with simple faith, that the body and blood of Christ are truly contained in it, leaving to these men of leisure the task of arguing as to what it contains***."

[Kathryn: I ask you to consider what sort of reasoning this is for making a change in a doctrine? I ask you to further consider whether or not this is the writing of a man who had intention to REFORM.

Luther wrote: ". . . the opinions of the Thomists, though approved by pope and council, remain but opinions and do not become articles of faith, even though an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise. For what is asserted without Scripture [Luther denied that John Chapter 6 was speaking of Holy Communion] or an approved revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. . . .

**I therefore permit every man to hold either of these views **[Aquinas’s transubstantiation, or Pierre d’Ailly’s view], as he chooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear to become guilty of heresy if he should believe in the presence of real bread and real wine on the altar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold, and believe one view or the other, without endangering his salvation." [Think about what Luther is saying here.]

Schaaf wrote: "Luther then expounds on why he prefers the bread and wine to remain with Christ’s body and blood on the altar, and concludes with a not very decisive affirmation:

 

[rr1213]

Let’s let LUTHER tell us how he changed his beliefs from transubstantiation to consubstantiation in his own words from Schaaf’s “History of the Christian Church,” Volume VII, found at
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc7.ii.vii.iv.html

Schaaf writes “Luther rejected, in his work on the “Babylonish Captivity of the Church” (1520), the doctrine of the mass, transubstantiation, and the withdrawal of the cup, as strongholds of the Papal tyranny. From this position he never receded.”

In the same work he clearly intimated his own view, which he had learned from Pierre d’Ailly, Cardinal of Cambray (Cameracensis),

Schaaf quotes Luther in “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” "Formerly, when I (Luther) was imbibing the scholastic theology, the Cardinal of Cambray gave me occasion for reflection, by arguing most acutely, in the Fourth Book of the Sentences, ]that it would be much more probable, and that fewer superfluous miracles would have to be introduced, if real bread and real wine, and not only their accidents, were understood to be upon the altar, unless the Church had determined the contrary.
Afterwards, when I saw what the church was, which had thus determined,—namely, the Thomistic/Aristotelian Church,—I became bolder; and, whereas I had been before in great straits of doubt, *** I now at length established my conscience in the former opinion:* namely, that there were real bread and real wine, in which were the real flesh and real blood of Christ in no other manner and in no less degree than the other party assert them to be under the accidents.**

Why should not Christ be able to include his body within the substance of bread, as well as within the accidents? Fire and iron, two different substances, are so mingled in red-hot iron that every part of it is both fire and iron.

*** Why may not the glorious body of Christ much more be in every part of the substance of the bread? … I rejoice greatly, that, at least among the common people, there remains a simple faith in this sacrament. They neither understand nor argue whether there are accidents in it or substance, but believe, with simple faith, that the body and blood of Christ are truly contained in it, leaving to these men of leisure the task of arguing as to what it contains***."

[Kathryn: I ask you to consider what sort of reasoning this is for making a change in a doctrine? I ask you to further consider whether or not this is the writing of a man who had intention to REFORM.

Luther wrote: ". . . the opinions of the Thomists, though approved by pope and council, remain but opinions and do not become articles of faith, even though an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise. For what is asserted without Scripture [Luther denied that John Chapter 6 was speaking of Holy Communion] or an approved revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. . . .

**I therefore permit every man to hold either of these views **[Aquinas’s transubstantiation, or Pierre d’Ailly’s view], as he chooses. My one concern at present is to remove all scruples of conscience, so that no one may fear to become guilty of heresy if he should believe in the presence of real bread and real wine on the altar, and that every one may feel at liberty to ponder, hold, and believe one view or the other, without endangering his salvation." [Think about what Luther is saying here.]

Schaaf wrote: "Luther then expounds on why he prefers the bread and wine to remain with Christ’s body and blood on the altar, and concludes with a not very decisive affirmation:

What Luther wrote here makes perfect sense to me. In the Eucharist, the Real Presence of Christ is in, under and with the bread and wine. It is the Body of Christ because Christ said it is. Yet, Paul in the Holy Scriptures also refers to the consecrated bread and wine thereby showing that it remains bread and wine also. This is a mystery that God is capable of even if we have no real way to understand it with our limited faculities.

 

[Contarini]

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.”

Yes, but he was obviously wrong (he was thinking of a very particular kind of Protestant, I suspect). There are plenty of church historians who are Protestants, many of them studying the Reformation. I know a lot of them personally. I won’t cite myself, since my study of the Reformation has led me to question Protestantism fundamentally, and I would never defend the Reformation (in the sense of the separation from Rome) as legitimate or justified. This is clearly not, however, because I know more about the Reformation than other scholars. Many people far more learned than I are very happy in their Protestantism. Scholarship just doesn’t work that way.

Insofar as it has an effect, I think it’s to make it harder to convert to anything. As my (Methodist) advisor once said to me, “It’s hard for historians to convert because we know where all the bodies are buried.” (In other words, we tend to just stick where we are, since our study of history leads us to question any hope that the grass may be greener elsewhere. Of course, some scholars just lose their faith altogether at the sight of all those “bodies.”) I think this is a far more accurate aphorism than Newman’s.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Let’s let LUTHER tell us how he changed his beliefs from transubstantiation to consubstantiation in his own words

Are you claiming that what you quote contradicts what I said? If so, how?

from Schaaf’s “History of the Christian Church,”

Of course. The most direct way to understand Luther is to read selections chosen by a Calvinist, with his explanations! Calvinists almost always get Luther wrong, because they are convinced that they have taken Protestantism to its logical conclusions and Luther thought otherwise because he was confused and still half-Catholic.

Also, the Babylonian Captivity is not the place where Luther expresses his belief in the Real Presence most clearly. You have to look at his writings against Zwingli for that. (He doesn’t contradict the Real Presence in BC, but he doesn’t really dwell on the matter.)

Edwin

 

[allofgrace]

What Luther wrote here makes perfect sense to me. In the Eucharist, the Real Presence of Christ is in, under and with the bread and wine. It is the Body of Christ because Christ said it is. Yet, Paul in the Holy Scriptures also refers to the consecrated bread and wine thereby showing that it remains bread and wine also. This is a mystery that God is capable of even if we have no real way to understand it with our limited faculities.

Whether or not it makes “perfect sense” to ANYONE is far from the point. The point is that Jesus insists that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood or we have no life in us. Now, as a brief aside, I’ve long been trying to figure out just what a “born again” person with no life in them looks like - I think I know.

However, what Luther thought about it and what he ALLOWED others to think about it or what those 500 years later think about it and its reasonableness just muddies the waters. The point is WHAT DOES GOD “THINK” IT MEANS and has God set in place a “pillar and ground of the Truth” in order to hold the line on the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.

It never ceases to amaze me that people feel that they have the right to approve or disapprove the gospel. St. Paul said that we didn’t.

And speaking of Paul, in I Cor 11 he has a great deal to say about Christ in the Eucharist. The only problem is that if you look at Luther’s Catechism where the question is, “Where is Holy Communion taught in the Scriptures”, Luther mentions Matthew, Mark and Luke and PART OF I Cor 11 but he leaves out the part where St. Paul says that if you eat and drink WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY OF CHRIST you eat and drink to your own damnation.

Now is it reasonable to think that if God holds a person accountable to DISCERN THE BODY OF CHIRST and the penalty is to eat and drink to your own damnation ---- is it reasonable of God to damn a person if there is no body and blood of the Lord to discern?

 

[rr1213]

… my study of the Reformation has led me to question Protestantism fundamentally, and I would never defend the Reformation (in the sense of the separation from Rome) as legitimate or justified…

…so what aspects of the Reformation would you defend…?

 

[rr1213]

Whether or not it makes “perfect sense” to ANYONE is far from the point. The point is that Jesus insists that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood or we have no life in us. Now, as a brief aside, I’ve long been trying to figure out just what a “born again” person with no life in them looks like - I think I know.

However, what Luther thought about it and what he ALLOWED others to think about it or what those 500 years later think about it and its reasonableness just muddies the waters. The point is WHAT DOES GOD “THINK” IT MEANS and has God set in place a “pillar and ground of the Truth” in order to hold the line on the Apostolic Deposit of Faith.

It never ceases to amaze me that people feel that they have the right to approve or disapprove the gospel. St. Paul said that we didn’t.

And speaking of Paul, in I Cor 11 he has a great deal to say about Christ in the Eucharist. The only problem is that if you look at Luther’s Catechism where the question is, “Where is Holy Communion taught in the Scriptures”, Luther mentions Matthew, Mark and Luke and PART OF I Cor 11 but he leaves out the part where St. Paul says that if you eat and drink WITHOUT DISCERNING THE BODY OF CHRIST you eat and drink to your own damnation.

Now is it reasonable to think that if God holds a person accountable to DISCERN THE BODY OF CHIRST and the penalty is to eat and drink to your own damnation ---- is it reasonable of God to damn a person if there is no body and blood of the Lord to discern?

It is not a question of approving or disapproving the Gospel but, rather, a question of what is meant by the Gospel. In some ways, Catholics and Protestants have different views of the matter. As for 1 Cor. 11, I am quite familiar with the verse in that it was the “clincher” that pushed me off the figurative fence as to whether I believed that the Eucharist was symbolic or that it was the Real Presence of Christ. Christ is truly and actually present in the Eucharist…and, believe me, such a belief is not inconsistent with but, rather is very consistent, with the Lutheran view of the Eucharist.

…and yeah, I know, we don’t have valid orders so our Eucharist is a sham… …here I’ve said it for everyone so they don’t need to repeat it again here.

 

[Ginger2]

Below is an excerpt from Luther’s open letter:

“If I have made errors within it (although I am not aware of any and would most certainly be unwilling to intentionally mistranslate a single letter) I will not allow the papists to judge for their ears continue to be too long and their hee-haws too weak for them to be critical of my translating. I know quite well how much skill, hard work,understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation. They know it less than even the miller’s donkey for they have never tried it.”

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

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.

I think everyone here is missing the OP’s question. The question isn’t on what Luther believed, it’s on what Lutherans believe. Lutherans take what Luther taught into consideration for their beliefs, but all of Luther’s views aren’t necessarily accepted as part of their “deposit of faith” so to speak.

I heard once that Luther described the Eucharist in a manner that was similar to putting an iron in the fire and then pulling it out with the iron still present, yet the presense of Jesus still there. Of course logically, the presense wold cease when the iron cooled.

Lutherans view the real presense as in, with, and under the bread. The bread never ceases to be there. They believe Jesus is completely there, but so is the bread.

That concept isn’t the same as consubstantiation. Consubstantiation teaches that Jesus and the bread are intermingled. Lutherans tend to reject that view.

 

[Contarini]

…so what aspects of the Reformation would you defend…?

Vernacular liturgy; communion in both kinds; the understanding of saving faith as a unified act rather than as a two-part composite of faith and love; a reaffirmation of the authority of Scripture over against the excesses of the canon lawyers; criticism of the doctrine and practice of indulgences; a forthright condemnation of the practice of withholding Scripture from the laity at times of crisis, and a positive effort to make Scripture available to the laity in their own language.

Somewhat more dubiously, I would also defend the privileging of Greek and Hebrew over the Vulgate, and the abolition of mandatory celibacy for secular clergy.

I’m not saying these are all, but these are some of the points that come to mind.

Edwin

 

[rr1213]

I think everyone here is missing the OP’s question. The question isn’t on what Luther believed, it’s on what Lutherans believe. Lutherans take what Luther taught into consideration for their beliefs, but all of Luther’s views aren’t necessarily accepted as part of their “deposit of faith” so to speak.

I heard once that Luther described the Eucharist in a manner that was similar to putting an iron in the fire and then pulling it out with the iron still present, yet the presense of Jesus still there. Of course logically, the presense wold cease when the iron cooled.

Lutherans view the real presense as in, with, and under the bread. The bread never ceases to be there. They believe Jesus is completely there, but so is the bread.

That concept isn’t the same as consubstantiation. Consubstantiation teaches that Jesus and the bread are intermingled. Lutherans tend to reject that view.

Ahh… clarity. Honestly explaining the Lutheran position even though you do not hold to it. Good post.