Holy Eucharist

[coco2]

I am interested in what different denominations think about the Eucharist. Specifically, Episcopalians and Lutherans, I do know Episcopalians and Anglicans believe that the bread and wine becomes the body of Christ during their Liturgy of the Eucharist, as do Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox. I think Lutherans do believe that Christ is present in communion but maybe not the actual Body and Blood?

Once a year, the Catholic church I went to had a Mass during Lent that these three churches joined together for part of the Liturgy. It was very powerful, you could just feel the Spirit at work. BUT before the Liturgy of the Eucharist, they all left and went to their respective churches to have communion. I felt heartbroken every year at that moment, all of the sadness that we are separated and how wonderful it would be if we would unite and be able to receive the Body and Blood of Christ together.

I know Evangelicals do not have communion. ( I don’t know why, they take everything else in the Bible literally.)

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

You may want to enlist the aid of Google to get at this in depth, but in brief:

Catholics teach that the bread and wine become, upon consecration, the body and blood of Jesus Christ, with only the appearances of the bread and wine remaining. The technical term for this is “transubstantiation,” and the teaching precedes the term by many centuries. The Eastern Orthodox believe the same, and the Catholic Church acknowledges that, because their Holy Orders remain valid, they have the true Holy Eucharist.

Lutherans claim “consubstantiation,” with the bread and wine not changing, but with the body and blood of Christ somehow coexisting with it.

Anglicans are, quite frankly, all over the map. Some claim real presence, through an unspecified mechanism, but deny both trans- and consubstantiation. Others deny any real presence, and speak in terms of a spiritual presence of some sort - again, there’s variations. It pretty much depends on who you read, or who you talk to.

Those are the differences in a nutshell, although there is more to the positions of each group. However, where one claims transubstantiation, another consubstantiation, and another neither, one can see why they separate at the Liturgy of the Eucharist. They are not celebrating the same thing, even though they all use the word “Eucharist” to describe what they celebrate.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[SIA]

You may want to enlist the aid of Google to get at this in depth, but in brief:

Catholics teach that the bread and wine become, upon consecration, the body and blood of Jesus Christ, with only the appearances of the bread and wine remaining. The technical term for this is “transubstantiation,” and the teaching precedes the term by many centuries. The Eastern Orthodox believe the same, and the Catholic Church acknowledges that, because their Holy Orders remain valid, they have the true Holy Eucharist.

Lutherans claim “consubstantiation,” with the bread and wine not changing, but with the body and blood of Christ somehow coexisting with it.

Anglicans are, quite frankly, all over the map. Some claim real presence, through an unspecified mechanism, but deny both trans- and consubstantiation. Others deny any real presence, and speak in terms of a spiritual presence of some sort - again, there’s variations. It pretty much depends on who you read, or who you talk to.

Those are the differences in a nutshell, although there is more to the positions of each group. However, where one claims transubstantiation, another consubstantiation, and another neither, one can see why they separate at the Liturgy of the Eucharist. They are not celebrating the same thing, even though they all use the word “Eucharist” to describe what they celebrate.

Blessings,

Gerry

All over the map? I don’t think so. We believe that the elements have Christ truly present in them upon consecration. As far as validity goes, everyone has their opinions. Upon witnessing what has taken place a few times during and immediately following communion at my church, I have no doubts that Jesus is truly present.

 

[ralphinal]

All over the map? I don’t think so. We believe that the elements have Christ truly present in them upon consecration. As far as validity goes, everyone has their opinions. Upon witnessing what has taken place a few times during and immediately following communion at my church, I have no doubts that Jesus is truly present.

SIA,
Are you guys the ones that the Real Presence is more dependant on the person receiving or is that another group?

 

[SIA]

SIA,
Are you guys the ones that the Real Presence is more dependant on the person receiving or is that another group?

not us. We believe that once consecrated by the priest, it is the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ.

 

[O.S.Luke]

The technical term for this is “transubstantiation,” and the teaching precedes the term by many centuries. The Eastern Orthodox believe the same, and the Catholic Church acknowledges that, because their Holy Orders remain valid, they have the true Holy Eucharist.

The Orthodox shy away from transubstantiation - they leave philosophy out and simply embrace the Real Presence.

Lutherans claim “consubstantiation,” with the bread and wine not changing, but with the body and blood of Christ somehow coexisting with it.

Lutherans do not claim consubstantiation in official documents and teaching; it has been erroneously assigned as a Lutheran belief by non-Lutherans.

 

[ralphinal]

not us. We believe that once consecrated by the priest, it is the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ.

OK. I was not sure.

After the service, what happens to any left over Consecrated Bread and Wine?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I

know Evangelicals do not have communion. ( I don’t know why, they take everything else in the Bible literally.)

They have the Lord’s Supper. It would be dramatically different perspective than what has been talked about so so far. It is a serious event for most but no they do not believe as you believe.

 

[nhl4159]

After the liturgy is concluded any remaining Eucharist is retained in the tabernacle and the precious blood is consumed.

 

[SIA]

I

They have the Lord’s Supper. It would be dramatically different perspective than what has been talked about so so far. It is a serious event for most but no they do not believe as you believe.

I just don’t understand why not. Scripture is very very clear on it. Jesus said this IS my body and this IS my blood. I’m a Protestant just as you are, but I believe in the real presence of Christ at communion.

 

[nhl4159]

Then may I ask why you are not a catholic?

 

[Writer]

Before we left the Episcopal Church, I talked to one of their pastors about this. If I remember correctly, he said something along the lines that the Eucharist/communion was held by some to be the true body and blood, while others thought it only a symbol. I never heard the church come down one way or the other–which kind of sums up our problems with that particular denomination. In fairness, though, I never researched the Anglican position on this.

With regards to Lutherans, I’d only add that there are differences between the different strains of Lutheranism. You have the Lutheran Bretherens who for some reason only celebrated communion once a month, or so, at the church we attended. Their tradition was very similar to the Evangelical view–just a symbol. The Evangelical Lutheran Church celebrated it with each service, but I don’t believe they think it to be the true body and blood of Christ. It is my understanding, though, that it is more than a symbol to them.

The last church we attended before crossing the Tiber was the Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church. In the words of our former pastor, it’s the most Catholic of the Protestant churches out there–except for a little belief or two about the pope, but I digress. They believed that the presence of Christ surrounded the communion, but that He apparently (in their belief) was unable to actually transform the elements into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord.

 

[Hisalone]

I just don’t understand why not. Scripture is very very clear on it. Jesus said this IS my body and this IS my blood. I’m a Protestant just as you are, but I believe in the real presence of Christ at communion.

He said this while in His body with His blood still inside of Him. All of scripture is truth therefore you must reconcile it with all of scripture.
Do this in rememberence of Me.

 

[Steadfast]

Lutherans specifically deny Transubstantiation; i.e. that the bread and wine cease to exist except in appearance and that all that is really received is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

O.S. is right when he says that Lutherans deny the expression “consubstantiation” and that it is non-Lutherans who like to say that it describes their view. It, like “Transubstantiation”, depends on an aristotelian conception Lutherans believe is alien to any discussion of sacramental truth.

Lutherans believe that believers receive, in, with and under bread and wine, the true Body and Blood of our Lord given for them.

Lutherans do not reserve the elements or venerate or adore them as they also teach that the full sacramental act does not end at consecration or confection but necessarily includes faithful reception.

Lutherans believe that this faithful reception of the Sacrament actually conveys grace; it really does something. It is the Gospel in edible form, bringing forgiveness of sins and peace with God to those who receive it, and that in it Jesus comes to us.

 

[ralphinal]

Steadfast,
So, by Lutheran thought, if a fire broke out in the Church during communion, and the Consecrated Bread and Wine were left in the church upon evacuation, they would cease to be Jesus?

 

[Steadfast]

That’s not an easy question to answer, but because I don’t think you’re laying a trap for me, I’ll just answer it the best way I can:

Most Lutherans would probably say that it “wasn’t Jesus” until it was received but that every effort should be made to protect and remove them before the fire got to them since they are, after all, *communio sanctorum.

*This is also why, after the service of communion, someone, the pastor or an elder will consume the remaining wine and the bread will be kept for another liturgy, where, yes, it will be consecrated again.

It isn’t just a matter of thrift; these things are for holy use.

 

[ralphinal]

That’s not an easy question to answer, but because I don’t think you’re laying a trap for me, I’ll just answer it the best way I can:

Most Lutherans would probably say that it “wasn’t Jesus” until it was received but that every effort should be made to protect and remove them before the fire got to them since they are, after all, *communio sanctorum.

*This is also why, after the service of communion, someone, the pastor or an elder will consume the remaining wine and the bread will be kept for another liturgy, where, yes, it will be consecrated again.

It isn’t just a matter of thrift; these things are for holy use.

No, it was not a trap. I am trying to place how the concept is understood in your denomination.

Now, what if someone receives who does not believe it to be Jesus?

 

[Steadfast]

No, it was not a trap. I am trying to place how the concept is understood in your denomination.

Now, what if someone receives who does not believe it to be Jesus?

They sin, they are “eating and drinking judgment” to quote Paul.

 

[ralphinal]

They sin, they are “eating and drinking judgment” to quote Paul.

Ok. I had hoped that you would say that. So, is the act of consecration dependant on a human receiving, no matter what the understanding of that person is? In other words, the act of the pastor is dependent upon having someone to receive in order for the consecration to be fully completed.

 

[Steadfast]

Ok. I had hoped that you would say that. So, is the act of consecration dependant on a human receiving, no matter what the understanding of that person is? In other words, the act of the pastor is dependent upon having someone to receive in order for the consecration to be fully completed.

Dependent? No, but the full sacramental act includes faithful reception, or unfaithful reception. The unbeliever still receives Jesus but, not recognizing Him, it’s like the whole hot coals thing.

The Sacrament is right and full when it is received by believers, but it is no less real when it is received by unbelievers, it’s just not be used rightly.

But yes, Lutherans do not have “private masses” where the pastor does the eucharist alone in a chapel. There must be someone to receive it.