D
dzerhusen
Guest
Do Lutherans believe in the real presence and if so how does it differ from Catholics? 
And this is Wisconsin Synod:And although they deny a transubstantiation (that is, an essential change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ) and do not believe that the body and blood of Christ are locally enclosed in the bread, or are in some other way permanently united with it apart from the use of the sacrament, they grant that through sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. **For they do not maintain that the body **of Christ is present apart from the use, as when the bread is laid aside or reserved in the tabernacle or carried about and exposed in procession, as happens in the papacy (FC SD VII, 14-15) [21]
So is this:Jesus as the God-man is, of course, present everywhere, but the sacramental presence is a special form of presence different from his omnipresence. It is also different from his presence in our hearts through faith. Both of these forms of presence (omnipresence and mystic union) are present also during the time of the sacrament, but they should not be confused with the sacramental presence in the narrow sense.
In regard to the sacramental presence in, with, and under the bread and wine, Scripture speaks only of Jesus body and blood, so we do not use the term “the whole Christ” to refer to the sacramental presence.
Another reason not to use the term is that some Reformed use it as a cover for their denial of the real presence of the body and blood. To say that we receive the whole Christ by faith is a way of denying the real presence of body and blood to all communicants.
. That is, in the Holy Supper, by means of the blessed bread the true body of Christ is received, and by means of the blessed wine the true blood of Christ is received. The bread and wine in their natural state and essence, not changed or removed according to their natural state; yet, in the sacramental use and reception, not just common bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ are received by means of the vary same elements.With these and similar words [the body and blood of Christ are received “in, with, and under” the bread and wine in the sacrament] nothing else is meant than the sacramental union of the consecrated bread and the body of Christ and of the consecrated chalice and the blood of Christ
I believe that Catholics describe the transformed elements as being the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. If I am wrong, please let me know.
Does anyone know whether the Lutheran understanding of the sacramental union includes the “soul and divinity” of Christ, as well as his body and blood?
Eastern Christianity: true sacrifice and objective presence but pious silence on the particularsI believe that Catholics describe the transformed elements as being the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. If I am wrong, please let me know.
Does anyone know whether the Lutheran understanding of the sacramental union includes the “soul and divinity” of Christ, as well as his body and blood?
“In, with and under the forms” - the body and blood of Jesus Christ are substantially present in, with and under the substance of the bread and wine, which remain. This is the view held by most Lutherans, and some Anglicans. Some non-Lutherans refer to this view as consubstantiation, but Lutherans almost universally if not universally reject this term.You’re correct. For details, see Trent, Thirteenth Session, canons 1-11 (canon 1, especially).
GKC
Anglicanus Catholicus
Hey Pastor Gary,We don’t accept the Roman Catholic dogma (or is it doctrine) of transsubstantiation, but see the Real Presence as a divine mystery – one that we cannot fully understand – but it is real. We believe the words of our Lord, “this is my Body,” and “this cup is the new covenant in my Blood.” The elements which our human senses perceive as bread and wine are, indeed, Christ’s Body and Blood.
Hey Pastor Gary,
The doctrine of transubstantiation is based in Aristotelian philosophy – explaining the real presence in terms of substance and accidents which, as I understand it, are independent properties such that one can be changed without affecting the other. In the doctrine of transubstantiation, the understanding that the substance (what the thing is) changes but the accidents (the physical properties that are perceived by human senses) do not.As you see it, how does the doctrine of transsubstantiation differ from your or the Lutheran understanding?
Thank you. I appreciate the response, Pastor Gary. Of course, by saying "We put our trust in the words of our Lord, “this is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” this is the same position as the Church. Do you see it differently?The doctrine of transubstantiation is based in Aristotelian philosophy – explaining the real presence in terms of substance and accidents which, as I understand it, are independent properties such that one can be changed without affecting the other. In the doctrine of transubstantiation, the understanding that the substance (what the thing is) changes but the accidents (the physical properties that are perceived by human senses) do not.
From a Lutheran perspective, the use of Aristotelian philosophy is an attempt to explain a divine mystery which defies explanation – how that which looks, feels, smells, and tastes like bread and wine is, in some myterious way, the Body and Blood of our Lord. We put our trust in the words of our Lord, “this is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Unlike a certain former President, we believe that “is” means “is.”
Peace,
Pastor Gary
Anybody know the answer to this from the Lutheran perspective?Does anyone know whether the Lutheran understanding of the sacramental union includes the “soul and divinity” of Christ, as well as his body and blood?
This might help: lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=6476Anybody know the answer to this from the Lutheran perspective?
Thanks, that makes perfect sense.rr1213,
There is no Lutheran teaching that specifically says that the Real Presence includes Jesus’ “soul and divinity.” However, we do say that we receive Christ in the Sacrament. Since Christ’s divine nature cannot be separated from his human nature, I cannot see any way that his soul and divinity could not be present in the consecrated elements. To believe otherwise leads one down the path of Nestorianism.
At the same time, I’m certain that there are people who would say, "Jesus didn’t say anything about his “soul and divinity” – he simply said “this [bread] is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.”
Peace,
Pastor Gary
I would say that Catholics and Lutherans have the same basic belief – that in the Sacrament we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. As I noted in my reply to rr1213, we have no explicit teaching about Jesus’ “soul and divinity” being received although, as I wrote, it doesn’t seem possible to separate Christ if one is an orthodox Christian.Thank you. I appreciate the response, Pastor Gary. Of course, by saying "We put our trust in the words of our Lord, “this is my body” and “this cup is the new covenant in my blood.” this is the same position as the Church. Do you see it differently?
Well, thanks again!sterryfamily
I would say that Catholics and Lutherans have the same basic belief – that in the Sacrament we receive the Body and Blood of Christ. As I noted in my reply to rr1213, we have no explicit teaching about Jesus’ “soul and divinity” being received although, as I wrote, it doesn’t seem possible to separate Christ if one is an orthodox Christian.
Peace,
Pastor Gary