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

[rr1213]

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

Good points. And I take it that you believe these achievements either could have been accomplished in the Church short of schism or, failing that, they should have been subordinated to the command of unity?

 

[GKC]

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.

Tiptoeing past the *Apostolicae Curae *reference, since we’ve done that lately, just why do you think not holding to the Articles is a matter of pride? In the Anglican Communion generally, it’s a matter of choice, save in the CoE, for the ordinands, where it’s a matter of law. And (as I have recently had it pointed out to me), in 2 other Anglican jurisdictions, where it is now apparently a matter of doctrine. Live and learn, as history marches on, and grows yet more complicated (says I).

GKC

 

[Ginger2]

I am curious why no one cares that comments in Luther’s open letter have been taken out of content. (see post # 37)

Luther did not boast of altering the NT meaning. He was mocking those who accused him of doing such.

If you read the entire letter without prejudice you would understand what he is saying. I had never read this letter before so I did to find out if Luther had read bragged of rewriting the NT.

But he didn’t. He was chastising those who falsely accused him. And denied the accusations.

As for him calling it “my NT” he was referring to the translation - not the content. Luther was upset that someone had stolen his hard work (translating the words in the NT German) and passed it off as their own.

Below is the excerpt:

"***We have seen that bungler from Dresden play master to my New Testament. (I will not mention his name in my books as he has his judge and is already well- known). He does admit that my German is good and sweet and that he could not improve it. Yet, anxious to dishonor it, he took my New Testament word for word as it was written, and removed my prefaces and glosses, replacing them with his own. Then he published my New Testament under his name! Dear Children, how it pained me when his prince in a detestable preface condemned my work and forbid all from reading Luther’s New Testament, while at the same time commending the Bungler’s New Testament to be read - even though it was the very same one Luther had written!

   So no one thinks I am lying, put Luther's and the Bungler's New Testaments side by side and compare them.  You will see who did the translation for both***."

We should never mislead to prove our point. JW’s do that all the time -untintentionally of course. The have been misled and did not varify what they were told, so they are just repeating the lies that were fed to them.

 

[rr1213]

I am curious why no one cares that comments in Luther’s open letter have been taken out of content. (see post # 37)

Luther did not boast of altering the NT meaning. He was mocking those who accused him of doing such.

If you read the entire letter without prejudice you would understand what he is saying. I had never read this letter before so I did to find out if Luther had read bragged of rewriting the NT.

But he didn’t. He was chastising those who falsely accused him. And denied the accusations.

As for him calling it “my NT” he was referring to the translation - not the content. Luther was upset that someone had stolen his hard work (translating the words in the NT German) and passed it off as their own.

Below is the excerpt:

"***We have seen that bungler from Dresden play master to my New Testament. (I will not mention his name in my books as he has his judge and is already well- known). He does admit that my German is good and sweet and that he could not improve it. Yet, anxious to dishonor it, he took my New Testament word for word as it was written, and removed my prefaces and glosses, replacing them with his own. Then he published my New Testament under his name! Dear Children, how it pained me when his prince in a detestable preface condemned my work and forbid all from reading Luther’s New Testament, while at the same time commending the Bungler’s New Testament to be read - even though it was the very same one Luther had written!

   So no one thinks I am lying, put Luther's and the Bungler's New Testaments side by side and compare them.  You will see who did the translation for both***."

We should never mislead to prove our point. JW’s do that all the time -untintentionally of course. The have been misled and did not varify what they were told, so they are just repeating the lies that were fed to them.

Good post. There are a few of us in this thread who have been trying to get people to read the entire letter rather than take a few lines out of context…a losing battle for sure, but a worthwhile one.

 

[Contarini]

I am curious why no one cares that comments in Luther’s open letter have been taken out of content.

Well, I’ve argued this point in thread after thread after thread. It’s a distraction here so I was ignoring it, since I just fought this fight in a different thread! I’m glad to see someone else help out. This is one of the most persistent Catholic misrepresentations of Luther.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Good points. And I take it that you believe these achievements either could have been accomplished in the Church short of schism or, failing that, they should have been subordinated to the command of unity?

Yes.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And (as I have recently had it pointed out to me), in 2 other Anglican jurisdictions, where it is now apparently a matter of doctrine.

Which jurisdictions?

Edwin

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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 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:

I don’t get any indication that any Lutheran has answered this question. I’m not Lutheran but I used to be, baptized and confirmed (and according to my former parish, devote. Btw I’m “former” not because of dissatisfaction with Lutheranism, but because I found the Orthodox Church).
It’s only a few months ago that I was told that consubstantiation was a slur against Lutheranism. Sacramental union, I believe is the term of the Book of Concord (sort of CCC for Lutherans), but I was taught in catechism that we believed consubstantiation, and I was proud to defend it if need be at the Latin school I attended. That is actually the only time it came up, and I thought about it. The catechism we used and the pastor only used the term consubstantiation when we had to contrast ourselves from the Latins (Adoration was idolatry, but it was combined with the complaint that the Latins didn’t commune the host (an objection Orthodox have) and it wasn’t under both kinds) and Protestants who thought it just a symbol, etc…a position that Lutherans most DEFINITELY do not accept (or didn’t, since the union with the episcopalians they’re infected with the same vagueris of belief now). For the most part, we simply accepted that the Real Presence was a given, didn’t see any reason to dwell on it, and moved on.

Btw
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union

is a good summary of the Lutheran beliefs-at least it states what I believed, and I was quite informed: the parish wanted to send me to seminary. So, for what it’s worth, the usual caveats of working with wikipedia don’t apply.

For that reason I was taught NEVER to comune at any church except Lutheran, because they didn’t believe as we do. I never did comune at another Protestant church, but I did at the Latin because they believed in the Real Presence. We were told to follow Luther’s example of refusing union with the Calvinists and Zwinglie just on the issue of Real Presence.

I remember the altar manuals we had talked about (I can’t remember the term off hand) some tunnel or something that went down to the foundation of the church, and about desposing the left over elments there: the idea that they not be in harms, i.e. desecration’s, way. The manual did talk about some who put the consecrated wine back in the bottle, which it advised against, noting though we’re Catholic, we didn’t deny the Real Presence, so consecrated wine IS different. Btw you also had to be an ordained minister to celebrate it, notwithstanding that we believed in the priesthood of all believers.

Really the first time the OP quetion came up is when I converted to Orthodoxy, where I had to renounce the idea that the Body and Blood just touches the Bread and Wine. I voiced an objection to it, because as a Lutheran I didn’t believe what I was told to renounce. But I practiced obedience. Now being in the Church and looking back, from the Orthodox perspective I can see what the Orthodox object to, and why the Church requires, just to be sure that no misunderstandings are being brought into the Church.

more…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Although it’s somewhat off OP, but the point has already been raised, so I’ll throw my two cents in. I’m ambivalent, as Orthodox, as to whether the Lutheran host has Real Presence. I suppose it does. I believe the Latin host does. I know the Orthodox host does. I believe that most other Protestants (including most Episcopalians) do not. But still…I once was at a service of the “Church of Christ” instrumental (I always have quotations: I told them I find the claim odd since their Church began in my lifetime, and I’m not 2000 years old). Odd bunch, in that they actually have, to contrast to most Protestants (in some ways even the Magisterial) a real defined ecclesiology (not that defined makes it correct), and a weekly Eucharist, or what passes for it (read on). Anyways, after they passed out the matzos and grape juice (I’m told the top of the tray has some wine, or was it the reverse?), the service became a social gathering for 15 minutes (backgroud music, social conversation,etc.). I took the opportunity to go to the bathroom. While there the deacon took the remains of the “elements” and dumped them in the toilet next to me.

Now I don’t believe that their “Lord’s Supper” “memorial” or whatever has Real Presence, but I have rarely been so physically shocked in my Life (I had to grab my chest for some time, btw I had already embraced Orthodoxy). Every Lutheran I have told this story to has had the same reaction.

I have to say some of the Representations of Martin Luther’s ideas are misrepresentations. Schaff I believe thought Luther wasn’t Protestant enough. And I think some here are reading the evangelical beliefs back into Luther, with a sort of “it’s all the same” thing (if it’s all the same, Protestants wouldn’t have all those demoninations the Latin apologists keep bringing up). If you are truly interested in what Martin Luther thought on the Real Presence, the link above has some good references. Also

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession_Concerning_Christ%27s_Supper

And the Book of Concord gives Lutheran statements on their beliefs.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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

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

Exactly, for many Protestants Lutherans aren’t Protestant enough.

Btw some Lutherans worry (rightly so, IMHO) if you are Lutheran enough. I know of Lutherans who would not commune in my old parish, and we couldn’t commune in theirs, because our beliefs weren’t up to snuff, because of the Lutheran body we were in. As our parish was sent a woman pastor by the national headquarters (a sing to “get with the program,” many left and went Missouri synod, and many old timers told me if they were younger they would. i was already long Orthodox at the time) and has, by the same association, gotten mixed up with the liberal wing of the Episcopalians etc. I saw the wisdom then and I certainly see it now, of such Lutheran pastors examining comunicants (which was a common occurence).

 

[Contarini]

Exactly, for many Protestants Lutherans aren’t Protestant enough.

I didn’t mean to put Schaff down–he was remarkably broad-minded for his day and is certainly worth reading, but the Reformed do have a certain paradigm of looking at the Reformation that doesn’t equip them to understand Luther well.

As a former LCMS (or was it WELS?), you no doubt understand what I am talking about!

There is an LCMS seminary near me in Fort Wayne, and they are very high church–the Fathers seem a lot more important to them than the Reformation (as they should be!).

Edwin

 

[Isa_Almisry]

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?

But again, as has been pointed out, the OP was on what LUTHERANS believe, not whether it’s right or wrong, a related but different question.

And if you can disown the “bad” popes, Luther can certainly disown the radical Protestants (as indeed he did Zwingli, etc.)

And btw, I was taught in Lutheran catechesis that discerning the body was why we had to examin ourselves, and why we did not commune with other Protestants.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I didn’t mean to put Schaff down–he was remarkably broad-minded for his day and is certainly worth reading, but the Reformed do have a certain paradigm of looking at the Reformation that doesn’t equip them to understand Luther well.

As a former LCMS (or was it WELS?), you no doubt understand what I am talking about!

There is an LCMS seminary near me in Fort Wayne, and they are very high church–the Fathers seem a lot more important to them than the Reformation (as they should be!).

Edwin

Actually former LCA, up just to before ELCA. Actually I worked hard for the union, but every time I look back…on the Titanic, it stopped at Ireland and some got off before she went to cross the Atlantic. Everything I hear makes me feel like I got off in Ireland.

Our hearts however were LCMS, which is why after the merger they sent a woman pastor, flex some muscle. I remember some parishioners whose WELS relatives wouldn’t intercomune, and we saw their point, because of our connections with other LCA parishes whose orthodoxy was suspect (and who took over the ELCA). Just after I embraced Orthodoxy the episcopalian intercommunion statement was being digested, and many in my former parish were upset, as, in their opinion, the Episcopalians had not unequivocally confessed Real Presence.

So yes, I know exactly what you mean. Schaff is a scholar, and in the main I say fair. I don’t expect him to give up what he considered truth. That’s like atheists saying we can’t study history because we see God in it.

Actually if you look at the Book of Concord, it is replete with references to the Fathers.

Btw if what I say about the Episcopalians is negative, it is because I have met those who are Orthodox in everything but name, and those who are pagan in everything but name. To say you are episcopalian doesn’t mean anything anymore, more has to be said. I’m afraid the Lutherans are heading the same direction.

 

[storyofasoul]

Hello all. I was born and raised Lutheran (WELS), and came into the Catholic Church just this past Easter, so by knowing both sides personally, hopefully I can add something to this thread.

In regards to the original post: Lutherans do believe in the real presence, but not in the same sense that Catholics do. They do believe that Christ is present, along with the bread and wine. So you’re recieving body, blood, bread, and wine. They believe that Christ is present only during the actual act of communion, but afterwards, it is just regular bread and wine again. For example, at my now former church, my mother has always helped with setting up and putting away everything for communion. After the church service is over, she puts the leftover wine and wafers back into the containers they came from originally…because to them, it is just bread and wine again. (rather than remaining the body and blood as Catholics believe, and thus reserving what is unused in the tabernacle)

I hope this helps. As far as I know, this is the practice in all Lutheran synods. There is some variance in the teachings of open vs closed communion, but I suppose that’s another discussion for another day. If yall have questions about any of this, please feel free to ask!

 

[GKC]

Which jurisdictions?

Edwin

Faulty memory. Strike the “two”, make it “one”: Nigeria, under +Akinola, seems to have worded their consitution such that the Articles are looked upon as normative. This appears to date from about 2005, not sure it it was different before. And it appears to relate to the issues that the orthodox African world has with the looser portions of the Communion.

That +Akinola wild favor the Aritcles is no surprise; that the jurisdiction formally seems to endorse them, is, a little.

So I must modify my rhetoric. Not the principle, but the rhetoric.

GKC

 

[Angainor]

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

Why do you want to know?

The command of Jesus is take eat/take drink. The sacrament is the taking, eating, and drinking of the of the body and blood of Christ given to us for our forgiveness.

After the completion of the sacrament of eating and drinking, any remaining bread and wine are taken care of respectfully. After the sacrament (of taking, eating, and drinking) is over, the sacrament is over. Any mystery of what happens to the “leftovers” remains a mystery as they are taken care of respectfully.

 

[donnyblake]

Why do you want to know?

The command of Jesus is take eat/take drink. The sacrament is the taking, eating, and drinking of the of the body and blood of Christ given to us for our forgiveness.

After the completion of the sacrament of eating and drinking, any remaining bread and wine are taken care of respectfully. After the sacrament (of taking, eating, and drinking) is over, the sacrament is over. Any mystery of what happens to the “leftovers” remains a mystery as they are taken care of respectfully.

By “respectfully” you mean the Blood of Christ is poured down the drain and the Body of Christ is fed to the birds outside???

 

[Angainor]

By “respectfully” you mean the Blood of Christ is poured down the drain and the Body of Christ is fed to the birds outside???

If by “the drain” you mean “the common sewer”, then no.

Anyway, after the sacrament as commanded by Jesus is over, I can’t say that the wine is his blood and the bread is his body. I only confess that I believe it is his body and blood as we are following his command to take and eat and drink.

 

[Jessica_Girardi]

Re: Praying is good but learning how to pray is vital.
Praying is a relationship with God. Praying to other titles and names is not in the bible. Moses was used of God and even Esther was used of God we do not pray to them and there is a reason. First because prayer is a relationship with God. Praying to another name is simply stating to have a relationship with someone other than God. But let’s not take my opinion for it let’s examine the bible together…
Genesis 25:21
Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant.
Genesis 25:20-22 (in Context) Genesis 25 (Whole Chapter)
Genesis 32:9
Then Jacob prayed, "O God of my father Abraham, God of my father Isaac, O LORD, who said to me, ‘Go back to your country and your relatives, and I will make you prosper,’
Genesis 32:8-10 (in Context) Genesis 32 (Whole Chapter)
Genesis 32:11
Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, and also the mothers with their children.
Genesis 32:10-12 (in Context) Genesis 32 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 8:8
Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Pray to the LORD to take the frogs away from me and my people, and I will let your people go to offer sacrifices to the LORD.”
Exodus 8:7-9 (in Context) Exodus 8 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 8:9
Moses said to Pharaoh, “I leave to you the honor of setting the time for me to pray for you and your officials and your people that you and your houses may be rid of the frogs, except for those that remain in the Nile.”
Exodus 8:8-10 (in Context) Exodus 8 (Whole Chapter)
The above are examples of praying to God in the Old testament. Now note how we are taught to pray in the New Testament
in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.
Romans 1:9-11 (in Context) Romans 1 (Whole Chapter)
2 Corinthians 1:11
as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many.
2 Corinthians 1:10-12 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 1 (Whole Chapter)
2 Corinthians 9:14
And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you.
2 Corinthians 9:13-15 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 9 (Whole Chapter)
Ephesians 1:16
I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers.
Ephesians 1:15-17 (in Context) Ephesians 1 (Whole Chapter)
Ephesians 6:18
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Ephesians 6:17-19 (in Context) Ephesians 6 (Whole Chapter)
Philippians 1:4
In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy
Philippians 1:3-5 (in Context) Philippians 1 (Whole Chapter)
Philippians 1:19
Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance.
Philippians 1:18-20 (in Context) Philippians 1 (Whole Chapter)
1 Thessalonians 1:2
Thanksgiving for the Thessalonians’ Faith ] We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers.
1 Thessalonians 1:1-3 (in Context) 1 Thessalonians 1 (Whole Chapter)
1 Timothy 2:1
Instructions on Worship ] I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—
1 Timothy 2:1-3 (in Context) 1 Timothy 2 (Whole Chapter)
2 Timothy 1:3
Encouragement to Be Faithful ] I thank God, whom I serve, as my forefathers did, with a clear conscience, as night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers.
2 Timothy 1:2-4 (in Context) 2 Timothy 1 (Whole Chapter)
Philemon 1:4
Thanksgiving and Prayer ] I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers,
Philemon 1:3-5 (in Context) Philemon 1 (Whole Chapter)

See in the above they prayed to Lord,God never to a person who worked for God. Afterall he is the supreme and there is none like him.This whole earth thing is not to make other Gods but to be a relashionship with the one true God. P.S. These are only some scriptures on prayer to view them all search biblegateway.com and enter “pray” and or “prayers”

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Anyway, after the sacrament as commanded by Jesus is over, I can’t say that the wine is his blood and the bread is his body. I only confess that I believe it is his body and blood as we are following his command to take and eat and drink.

So the only thing you know for certain is that it is Jesus’ body and blood when you partake, but since you do not know for certain one way or the other afterwards, you treat the elements with respect?

Is the treatment of the elements afterward treated similarly throughout the LCMS or is the treatment of the elements afterwards left up to the individual congregation?