Holy Eucharist

[ralphinal]

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.

Now for the trick question: is it Biblical?

 

[Steadfast]

Now for the trick question: is it Biblical?

Yes…

• The Eucharist is the church’s family meal.
• It properly illustrates and mirrors the Incarnation, revealing Christ as both terrestrial and divine and not just one or the other.
• In it we receive Jesus and everything He has for us.

 

[ralphinal]

Yes…

• The Eucharist is the church’s family meal.
• It properly illustrates and mirrors the Incarnation, revealing Christ as both terrestrial and divine and not just one or the other.
• In it we receive Jesus and everything He has for us.

Sorry, I was not clear.

Is it Biblical that Jesus would leave the bread and wine should no one receive it.

I have no issue with the other part.

 

[Steadfast]

Is it Biblical that Jesus would leave the bread and wine should no one receive it.

Can you rephrase this? I am not sure I understand what you’re asking.

 

[ralphinal]

Can you rephrase this? I am not sure I understand what you’re asking.

Biblically, I see Jesus saying “This is my body”

You do, too.

What I do not see is any indication that “is” is not a permanent state. Nor do I see “This is my body for those who receive it.”

Again, I am not trying to trap, but understand. I know that Lutherans do pride themselves on scriptural support. I just want to see it on this one.

 

[Steadfast]

Biblically, I see Jesus saying “This is my body”

You do, too.

What I do not see is any indication that “is” is not a permanent state. Nor do I see “This is my body for those who receive it.”

Again, I am not trying to trap, but understand. I know that Lutherans do pride themselves on scriptural support. I just want to see it on this one.

I don’t really see that the “hoc est” implies permanence or perdurance beyond the partaking since He also says, quite pointedly, “given for you” and the context is a meal with other people which would seem to imply sharing in it as part of the whole action.

 

[mercygate]

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.

For what it’s worth, at the Lutheran church up the block from my parish, any leftover bread goes outdoors to the birds after the Communion service. The pastor explains that after the congregation leaves, the Presence in the bread and wine leaves also. I don’t know if that’s mainstream or typical of Lutherans. They are ELCA.

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t really see that the “hoc est” implies permanence or perdurance beyond the partaking since He also says, quite pointedly, “given for you” and the context is a meal with other people which would seem to imply sharing in it as part of the whole action.

Ok. that is what I needed to know.

 

[Steadfast]

For what it’s worth, at the Lutheran church up the block from my parish, any leftover bread goes outdoors to the birds after the Communion service. The pastor explains that after the congregation leaves, the Presence in the bread and wine leaves also. I don’t know if that’s mainstream or typical of Lutherans. They are ELCA.

Well, anything is possible with the ELCA.

I am certainly not comfortable with that and I am pretty sure my Church (LCMS) wouldn’t endorse it.

 

[mercygate]

I don’t really see that the “hoc est” implies permanence or perdurance beyond the partaking since He also says, quite pointedly, “given for you” and the context is a meal with other people which would seem to imply sharing in it as part of the whole action.

It is absolutely imperative that the consecrated elements be consumed in both kinds for the Catholic Sacrament to be valid. That said, it IS possible (though not recommended) for a solitary priest to say Mass. And because the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are fully present in BOTH elements, we allow the Eucharist to be received in only one kind by the faithful. The celebrant MUST partake of both.

I believe Catholic understanding of the persistence of Christ’s Presence is derived from two things: 1) Our Lord’s word “IS” – He does not say that IS becomes “not IS” – and 2) the practice of the primitive Church of carrying the Sacrament from the churh to the sick. It would be pointless to carry “not IS” to the sick. (We still do this.)

 

[JonNC]

I believe Catholic understanding of the persistence of Christ’s Presence is derived from two things: 1) Our Lord’s word “IS” – He does not say that IS becomes “not IS” – and 2) the practice of the primitive Church of carrying the Sacrament from the churh to the sick. It would be pointless to carry “not IS” to the sick. (We still do this.)

Lutherans continue to practice this, as well. the consecrated elements can be taken to the sick without being consecrated again as this continues to be part of the Eucharistic service.

I might add to what steadfast said, it is, for me, important that we avoid receptionism - the notion that it is not the body and blood until received. The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at consecration, not reception.

The apology to the Augburg states:

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament.

Afterall, Christ did not say “Take and eat, this will be my Body”.
As He held it in His hands, he said, “This is my Body”, before the actual eating.

Jon

 

[ralphinal]

Lutherans continue to practice this, as well. the consecrated elements can be taken to the sick without being consecrated again as this continues to be part of the Eucharistic service.

I might add to what steadfast said, it is, for me, important that we avoid receptionism - the notion that it is not the body and blood until received. The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at consecration, not reception.

The apology to the Augburg states:

Afterall, Christ did not say “Take and eat, this will be my Body”.
As He held it in His hands, he said, “This is my Body”, before the actual eating.

Jon

I think that this is what I was trying to establish. Thanks.

 

[mercygate]

Lutherans continue to practice this, as well. the consecrated elements can be taken to the sick without being consecrated again as this continues to be part of the Eucharistic service.

I might add to what steadfast said, it is, for me, important that we avoid receptionism - the notion that it is not the body and blood until received. The bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ at consecration, not reception.

The apology to the Augburg states:

Afterall, Christ did not say “Take and eat, this will be my Body”.
As He held it in His hands, he said, “This is my Body”, before the actual eating.

Jon

Yup. Receptionism is just :hypno: – at least in a sacramental view.

Any comment on my neighboring pastor’s practice of using the leftovers as bird food? Is that typical for Lutherans? I find it hard to imagine that it is, since Lutherans of all stripes seem to have a relatively high doctrine of the eucharist.

 

[JonNC]

Yup. Receptionism is just :hypno: – at least in a sacramental view.

Any comment on my neighboring pastor’s practice of using the leftovers as bird food? Is that typical for Lutherans? I find it hard to imagine that it is, since Lutherans of all stripes seem to have a relatively high doctrine of the eucharist.

Gees, I hope not. I think it is hideous. Properly done, it should either be consumed, or reserved in a separate vessel to be used again.

Jon

 

[LilyM]

I don’t really see that the “hoc est” implies permanence or perdurance beyond the partaking since He also says, quite pointedly, “given for you” and the context is a meal with other people which would seem to imply sharing in it as part of the whole action.

But the “WILL BE” is what implies that it extends beyond the meal, after all Jesus only completes the act of giving His body on the cross, no?

“This is my blood … which WILL BE shed for you and for many for the remission of sins” - that clearly doesn’t happen during the meal. The meal is certainly not for the many, but for the twelve - and there is no shedding of blood involved in the Supper.

It implies that what is in the cup is the same as that which is shed on the Cross. Surely that means an extension beyond the meal itself?

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

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.

I can take you to Anglican churches here in Greater Vancouver where the Rector would agree with you 100%. And, I can take you to places where the Rector will give you a very rough ride for even using the term"real presence".

They are all over the map, and there’s more of these clergymen than there is of you, so I’m sticking with with “all over the map.” It’s not an opinion; it’s an observation.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[JonNC]

But the “WILL BE” is what implies that it extends beyond the meal, after all Jesus only completes the act of giving His body on the cross, no?

“This is my blood … which WILL BE shed for you and for many for the remission of sins” - that clearly doesn’t happen during the meal. The meal is certainly not for the many, but for the twelve - and there is no shedding of blood involved in the Supper.

It implies that what is in the cup is the same as that which is shed on the Cross. Surely that means an extension beyond the meal itself?

I know you asked steadfast, so I hope you don’t mind my response. I’m probably pretty high-church Lutheran, and would rather err on the side of caution by reserving the consecrated host, rather than throwing it to the birds. I really don’t even hold much offense to Catholic adoration, so long as there is an understanding what Christ’s intentions were - that we eat and drink. That is the real purpose of the Eucharist. Adoration may be pious, but it is not primary.

Jon

 

[mercygate]

Gees, I hope not. I think it is hideous. Properly done, it should either be consumed, or reserved in a separate vessel to be used again.

Jon

I thought so. Thank you.

 

[ralphinal]

I know you asked steadfast, so I hope you don’t mind my response. I’m probably pretty high-church Lutheran, and would rather err on the side of caution by reserving the consecrated host, rather than throwing it to the birds. I really don’t even hold much offense to Catholic adoration, so long as there is an understanding what Christ’s intentions were - that we eat and drink. That is the real purpose of the Eucharist. Adoration may be pious, but it is not primary.

Jon

I attend adoration for at least an hour every week. I have never read or been told anything to imply that it is primary over the actual Eucharist. One is a sacrament, the other is a natural offshoot of who the Eucharist is.

Would a Eucharistic procession bother you?

 

[mercygate]

I know you asked steadfast, so I hope you don’t mind my response. I’m probably pretty high-church Lutheran, and would rather err on the side of caution by reserving the consecrated host, rather than throwing it to the birds. I really don’t even hold much offense to Catholic adoration, so long as there is an understanding what Christ’s intentions were - that we eat and drink. That is the real purpose of the Eucharist. Adoration may be pious, but it is not primary.

Jon

I am sure you are aware that at every Mass the consecrated elements MUST be consumed, in both kinds, by the Priest. The Eucharist is to be celebrated by a solitary priest only when there is nobody else to join him. In times past, when every priest was required to celebrate Mass daily, it was more common for them to celebrate their Mass solo at one of the many side altars you see in old churches. But it was never the “best” possible option.