Holy Communion & the Eucharist

[Bryan]

Hello everyone. In an earlier thread I posted, asking about the Eucharist, I was told that they major difference between it and protestant communion is that Catholic tradition believes the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Christ, not a symbol, which the protestant churches believe it only to be a symbol.

Well, I have some interesting news. See, I’ve been posting on here as a possible convert, asking questions and trying to understand. I have found that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod believes also that the body and blood are actually present. I am a member of the LCMS and was excited to read this. I wasn’t aware of it before, which may be a mark of either my attention or of another’s teachings, but that isn’t the issue.

According to the Augsburg Confession, the LCMS believes what I said before.

 

[Bryan]

Okay, I have done a tad more research and have found the LCMS to reject the notion of the bread and wine “turned into” the body and blood of Christ. They believe it IS the body and blood of Christ. Doesn’t the Catholic Church believe it to “turn into” these things?

 

[Crusader]

Bryan:

Hello everyone. In an earlier thread I posted, asking about the Eucharist, I was told that they major difference between it and protestant communion is that Catholic tradition believes the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Christ, not a symbol, which the protestant churches believe it only to be a symbol.

Well, I have some interesting news. See, I’ve been posting on here as a possible convert, asking questions and trying to understand. I have found that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod believes also that the body and blood are actually present. I am a member of the LCMS and was excited to read this. I wasn’t aware of it before, which may be a mark of either my attention or of another’s teachings, but that isn’t the issue.

According to the Augsburg Confession, the LCMS believes what I said before.

The biggest difference is that no Protestant minister is able to confect the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ.

 

[tmore35]

It all depends on what you think “turing into” actually means. The Catholic Church never taught that there is an actual physical change in the bread and wine. The change is effected through sign and symbol and the words of Christ when declared in the concecration. The Holy Spirit brings about the change.

Our sacraments are visible signs of invisible grace made present through matter (the symbols and signs ) and form (the liturgical words). The differences lie in the manner in which we interpret the symbolic reality within the sacramnet. It is a symbolic reality we believe in rather than a symbolic representation.

 

[Bryan]

Transubstantiation:
Change of one substance into another. Term for RC view that in the eucharistic rite the substance or basic reality of bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, while the outward appearances of bread and wine are not affected.

Consubstantiation:
View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner.

From the LCMS website:
“Reul Presence. The words of institution, “Take, eat; this is My body,” clearly state: “With this bread I give you My body.” So these words are explained 1 Co 10:16. There is no transubstantiation* of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, nor any consubstantiation* or impanation.* In, with, and under the bread and wine a communicant, also an unbelieving communicant (1 Co 11:27–29), receives Christ’s true body, given into death, and His true blood, shed for sins.”

“The question is not whether Christ is present acc. to His divine nature in the Sacrament, or whether the soul by faith is united with Christ (spiritual eating and drinking), or whether the believing communicant receives the merits of Christ’s shed blood by faith (all of which is acknowledged as true by both Luths. and Ref.).** In Lutheran terminology the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine is called sacramental* eating and drinking.”**

Is it not also sacramental in the Catholic Church?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Bryan:

Hello everyone. In an earlier thread I posted, asking about the Eucharist, I was told that they major difference between it and protestant communion is that Catholic tradition believes the bread and wine to actually be the body and blood of Christ, not a symbol, which the protestant churches believe it only to be a symbol.

Well, I have some interesting news. See, I’ve been posting on here as a possible convert, asking questions and trying to understand. I have found that the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod believes also that the body and blood are actually present. I am a member of the LCMS and was excited to read this. I wasn’t aware of it before, which may be a mark of either my attention or of another’s teachings, but that isn’t the issue.

According to the Augsburg Confession, the LCMS believes what I said before.

The difference is in reality. The Catholic Eucharist, Holy Communion IS the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ. If a Catholic receiving this Sacrament does not believe this, that does not in any way alter what they receive. The Protestant eucharist or Lord’s Supper never is the Body, Blood, Soul or Divinity of Christ no matter how much they want it to be. They may think or believe that what the receive is the Body and Blood of Christ but all that they receive is common bread and wine or grape juice.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Do the Lutherans adore the Eucharist as God?

What do they do with the left-overs?

 

[Bryan]

The Protestant eucharist or Lord’s Supper never is the Body, Blood, Soul or Divinity of Christ no matter how much they want it to be. They may think or believe that what the receive is the Body and Blood of Christ but all that they receive is common bread and wine or grape juice.

Are you serious? Gimmie a break man, I’ve never heard of more elitest bull in my life. You tell me where it says in the Bible that only Catholic Priests may deem bread and wine the “official” body and blood of Christ. Because last I checked, it says in the Bible that Jesus gave to his disciples his body and blood. Therefore, taken literally, the bread and wine served in a Lutheran mass IS the body and blood of Christ. They do not need to “change” it through blessing or anything else, it IS the body and blood of Christ.

Rich, did you not read a single thing I posted? This is not the basic “stereotypical” protestant communion. It is a LCMS communion which differs from all other holy communions in both the Protestant and Catholic Churches. Please do yourself a service and reread what I posted before making generalizations about “so-called” protestant communion in a LCMS Church.

I don’t mean to insult anyone, but it is comments like that one that I fear are the reasons Catholics get a bad rap. The LCMS is not your basic protestant church. It is as close to Catholic as one can get without taking that leap, but with some important differences. IF someone can explain to me why the bread and wine has to be changed into the body and blood of Christ, I would love to hear it. Because according to scripture, it is already the body and blood. To get me to understand this, I will need actual PROOF from the Bible, not from Catholic doctrine which not only doesn’t affect protestants, but also brings controversy in its own authority.

 

[serenity]

I will try to explain it. Jesus told his disciples “do this in memory of me”. He gave them the direct power and authority to do this. Not just any joe-schmoe. Holy orders are passed down from Jesus. If one is not a catholic priest, he cannot do this.

 

[Bryan]

But you see, that in interpretting the Bible in a way that would give Catholic priests that ability. “Do this in memory of me,” or “Do this in rememberance of me,” on face value tells those involved to do what they just did (have the Lord’s Supper) and do it to honor Jesus Christ. On face value, it says nothing more. Reguardless of what modern day catholics might think, there is plenty of evidence in the past that would justify what I am about to say. All churches, all religious, interpret things in certain ways and change things to say what they need them to say. The Catholic church is no different. Catholic monks used to add in religious references to tomes that originally never had any, etc. So to say that only Catholic priests have the ability to do such things is not scripturally based, it is traditionally based, which are two different things. Scripture is scripture and tradition in interpretation.

And unless you have forgotten this, using your logic, the Lutheran Church would possibly have this “right” as well since Luther himself was a Catholic Priest before breaking off. Still, it is important to pay attention to your own (catholic) doctrine which states that non-catholics who have been baptized may enter heaven while those who haven’t can’t. It then later states that they must take part in true eucharist. So according to your logic, I suppose I’m all set since I once took part in eucharist with my catholic girlfriend. And as stated somewhere else on these forums (a recent thread), a Catholic doesn’t have to believe anything he is doing as long as he is in eucharist. I also know that non-catholics aren’t supposed to take part in such a ceremony, but since I did, I suppose I’m good to go.

Do you see the problem is much of the logic? It is important not to be blind to possibility, and to question things one is taught in order to grasp a true knowledge of them. When the main thing us Christians have to go on is the Bible, let us stick to it, not interpret it to make sure that non-catholics are practicing heresey (a possible explanation to any catholic doctrine that may state only catholic priests can give “true” eucharist). Things are not always so because the Bible plainly states them. The Bible doesn’t even plainly state the Ten Commandments in any order or finite number! In the NT, the number is shrunken time and time again by half. But the Lord’s Supper is stated plainly for all to see, and only an objective mind, with no previous reasons can read such a portion of the Bible and explain it as such. I have no ammo, no reason to doubt or dismiss anything. I am open to opinion, but I have read the Lord’s Supper in the Bible many, many times lately as a non-opinionated observer and what I see by the Catholic view is purposeful interpretation for political and/or church-doctrinal issues…not biblical/liturgical issues.

 

[Bryan]

So I will ask once more. Can anyone give me any real biblical evidence for why only a catholic priest can “change” the bread and wine into the body and blood of christ when the Bible states that it already is it? “Do this in rememberace of me,” is not evidence, it is a carefully selected piece of a huge cannon that makes possible a Church tradition, not a biblical right. Please read this entire post before replying as well, something I don’t think everyone is doing. Let me leave you all with this…

Matthew 9:8 - Which states “But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled, and glorified God. which had given such power onto men.”

John 20:22-23 - Which states “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

These two segments are biblical proof that Jesus gave the power to man to forgive sins through confession. If you read the four versus before Matt 9:8, you will see even more why. Official Catholic doctrine supports confession to a priest via such versus from the Bible, and rightfully so. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod also practices confession to a Pastor. They do so because it is said in the Bible that men have that power. Do you see the difference here? If you take them for face value without any prior motive, they speak a truth. But as soon as you begin interpreting them, you could say “Well, in John, he breathed upon his disciples and said that, so…only catholic priests could give absolution through confession since it all started there.” And most likely, the Catholic Church does say that, unfortunately.

Think hard on what I have said here, for it is not easily answered except perhaps to agree to disagree. As a possible convert, I’m having a hard time dealing with the simple, non-researched answers I’ve received thus far. I don’t want tradition, I was biblical proof why I should believe non-catholics are going to hell.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Bryan:

…
I don’t want tradition, I was biblical proof why I should believe non-catholics are going to hell.

One,

OK… the problem is, the instructions and teachings of Christ are not wholly contained in the Bible itself. The Bible were compiled, defined, and canonised in the fourth/fifth century in a Council of the Catholic Church – then already safeguarded by Rome.

Before that time, the teachings of Christ were handed down by the Apostles and their successors. Hence, “Sacred Tradition” – of which the NT books are but a part!

The argumant/discussion cannot go any further, then, if one insist on *explicit * spelling out in the Bible. Although all of our Tradition have sound Biblical roots - explicit or implicit.

For the ministerial priesthood matter, I think it’s the ones when Christ told the Apostles “to be teachers and make others one” or where Acts describe the Eucharistic life of the Early Church (“the breaking of the bread”, presbytrers, etc)

Two,

There is no Catholic Tradition that dogmatises that non-Catholics go to Hell.

 

[Bryan]

Then here is a viable question…

If the Catholic Church recognizes non-catholic baptism as viable and ligitimate, then why not non-catholic communion?

If according to old catholic tradition that a priest must be catholic to make these things happen, then shouldn’t a non-catholic baptism be iligitimate?

 

[OhioBob]

Bryan:

…See, I’ve been posting on here as a possible convert, asking questions and trying to understand…

I find the above sentiment a bit conflicted with the tone of the rhetoric you have since posted on this thread. I know very little about LCMS other than the denomination typically is very anti-Catholic as opposed to the ELCA.

If you are truly interested in conversion, there are plenty of resources on the Catholic Answers site alone that speaks to the theology of the Eucharist, apostolic succession, sacred tradition and Eucharistic devotion. I’m sure you already know that.

Several posters have tried to explain it on this thread. However, from the tone of your own posts, it seems clear that you are not really searching for answers. Go figure…

 

[rwoehmke]

Bryan:

So to say that only Catholic priests have the ability to do such things is not scripturally based, it is traditionally based, which are two different things. Scripture is scripture and tradition in interpretation.

We have more than a logic problem here. We need to remember that scripture is oral tradition written down and that all tradition did not find its way into the Scriptures which were accepted by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century as the Canon of the Bible as we know it today. To stick with Sola Scripture is to disregard a much of what the Catholic Church has held as truth since the early days of Christianity. We are not talking here of material that was “inserted” in the 16th century. This has become a p---- contest and I don’t think arguement and logic are going to solve any disagreements in this thread.

 

[mrS4ntA]

Bryan:

Then here is a viable question…

If the Catholic Church recognizes non-catholic baptism as viable and ligitimate, then why not non-catholic communion?

If according to old catholic tradition that a priest must be catholic to make these things happen, then shouldn’t a non-catholic baptism be iligitimate?

Because of what is involved. For Baptism, what is necessary is simply water and the Trinitarian formula.

The Eucharist involves much more. It involves consecration. And the hands that consecrate (the bread and the wine) must be consecrated by the Apostles (who received it and were consecrated by Christ) and their apostles. And the consecrated priests of the Catholic Church trace their “laying of the hands” to the Apostles themselves.

This is why even though the Eastern Orthodox churches are not in communion with Rome, even rejecting the Pope’s primacy as the Vicar of Christ, they do have valid Sacraments – even the Eucharist. The Church does hold that what the Eastern Orthodox has inside their tabernacle is truly the Eucharistic Jesus. So this is answering the second part of your question. The Church does not say only Catholic can make it happen. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox priests can make it happen – simply because they trace their succession to the first bishops: the Apostles.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Bryan, while you’re correct that the Lutheran conception of Eucharist is not as simplistic as the way in which Catholics normally understand, I also don’t think your understanding is entirely accurate. In Lutheran belief the bread and wine are not the Body and Blood of Christ either before or after their reception by the communicant - the species only become Christ as an interaction with the believing response of the one receiving them. (I don’t know when the LCMS made this departure from Luther - I don’t see how they can justify this based on the rest of Luther’s eucharistic theology). Thus, while Luther would argue that what is received in communion actually is Christ, he would also argue that any leftover bread and wine are not Christ. That is a big distinction. In Catholic belief, the priest actually has sacramental power to cause a permanent change bread and wine into Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. Because of that, even non-believers receive the true Christ in the Eucharist, and that which is not consumed may be worshiped because it continues to truly be Christ.

A similar distinction applies to confession. Even if the LCMS encourages (requires?) confession to a pastor, the understanding is different (at least in Luther himself - you may have rejected that part of his teaching as well). In Luther’s understanding of confession, the absolution of a priest was not him causing you to be forgiven your sins; rather, he was recalling to you the forgiveness won for you by Christ. So confession was salutary insofar as it encouraged an examination of conscience and meditation on God’s forgiveness, but by no means mandatory. The Catholic view, however, is that the priest is actually empowered by Christ to extend the forgiveness of God, causing them through his absolution to be forgiven by God.

The basic difference is that Lutherans see the idea of sacrament as bound up solely with believing response while Catholics retain the view that physical actions actually can bring about changes in teh spiritual order (having spiritual effects in opere operato).

 

[serenity]

Bryan,

Bible aside, do you believe in prayer? Do you believe that God answers prayers? Ask yourself these questions. Maybe you need to pray and listen to God, not what’s in your logical bible thinking. What do you think they did before the bible was published?
I will keep you in my prayers.

 

[mercygate]

Sometimes these discussions are extremely confusing and often they fly off toward issues only tangentially related to the question. Bryan, for a clearer explanation of all of this, you might find the book There We Stood; Here We Stand to be useful. It is stories of 11 former Lutherans.

By the way, I am surprised that as an LCMS you were unaware that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence. The official term is “consubstantiation” and it refers to the presence of Christ “with” of bread and wine. I may be off the mark here, but I do not believe the Lutheran position is one of pure individual “receptionism” – you have to believe it in order for it to be real. It’s more a matter of the worshiping community validating the sacrament. And yes, when the service is over, Christ is no longer present with the bread and wine. You can feed it to the birds.

Bryan – Catholics believe that for the Eucharist, sacramental validity and authority pertain only to the Apostolic churches: that is, the RCC and Orthodox Churches. (Baptism is an exception, as as others have discussed.) The first Scriptural warrant for this is the promise regarding Peter and the Keys (Mt. 16:18). Second is John 20:23, when the risen Jesus breathes on the apostles and transmits to them the Holy Spirit and with the Spirit the power to forgive sins. Part of saying Mass validly and effectively is to be in union with the Apostolic Church and have the same intention that the Church has. Lutherans are not in union and do not have that intention, so that is why Catholics do not consider the sacrament to be “real.”

 

[Bryan]

Lutherans believe the bread and wine are both the body and blood and bread and wine at the same time. It goes back to Plutonian philosophy that I won’t get into. You can reference Thomas Equinace (spelling?) for that.

As far as Aposolistic Lineage, the difference in the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church are that Luther, although once a catholic priest, rejected the “Lay on Hands” lineage when he broke away. The Episc. church for instance, did not…but the Catholic Church rejects them for it.

I have at no time said that I knew everything, that is why I ask you guys questions. It would do best for all of us to take a step back and think about things. It would do best for you guys to take a step back and stop talking down to me. I am not injuring you, but I feel injured in your sarcastic remarks. Much more of this and I won’t be able to participate on these forums anymore.