Lutherans and "Receptionism"

[Thorolfr]

As I said, Lutherans do not generally believe in receptionism, but they do not, according to what the confessions say, believe that the sacrament endures beyond the reception of the congregation. The Augsburg Confession of course does not state this, but only because it restricts itself to teaching the “real presence” and says nothing more. This does not mean that the Augsburg Confession is the only thing Lutherans have said about the Lord’s Supper.

Another document that sheds light on the views of Luther and other early Lutherans on this issue is the Wittenburg Concord. According to Wikipedia:

Wittenberg Concord, is a religious concordat signed by Reformed and Lutheran theologians and churchmen on May 29, 1536[1][2] as an attempted resolution of their differences with respect to the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.[2] It is considered a foundational document for Lutheranism[3] but was later rejected by the Reformed.

The Reformed signers included Martin Bucer,[4] Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, Matthäus Alber, Martin Frecht, Jakob Otter, and Wolfgang Musculus. The Lutherans signers included Martin Luther,[4] Philipp Melanchthon,[4] Johannes Bugenhagen, Justus Jonas, Caspar Cruciger, Justus Menius, Friedrich Myconius, Urban Rhegius, George Spalatin. This document defined the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist as the Sacramental Union and maintained the real eating of the body and blood of Christ by “unworthy communicants” (manducatio indignorum).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittenberg_Concord

The text of the Wittenburg Concord is quoted in Charles P. Arand, Robert Kolb and James A. Nestingen, The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the Book of Concord (Fortress Press, 2012), p. 231:

We have heard how Martin Bucer has explained his own position and that of the other preachers who came with him from the [south German] cities regarding the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.

They confess in the words of Irenaeus, that in this sacrament there are two things, one heavenly and one earthly. Therefore they hold and teach that with the bread and the wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed and received. Although they do not believe in a transubstantiation, that is, in an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood, and they do not hold that the body and blood of Christ are localiter, that is, spatially enclosed in the bread or are permanently united in some other way apart from reception in the sacrament, they nevertheless admit that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. For apart from reception – for example, when the bread is laid aside and kept in the tabernacle or carried about and put on display in the procession, as happens in the papacy – the body of Christ is not present.

Second, they hold that the institution of this sacrament, as it was performed by Christ, is effective throughout Christendom and that its power does not rest upon the worthiness of unworthiness of the minister who distributes the sacrament, nor upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the one who receives it because, as Saint Paul says, even the unworthy may receive the sacrament. Thus, they hold that the body and blood of Christ are truly distributed even to the unworthy, and that the unworthy truly receive the body and blood when the sacrament is conducted according to Christ’s institution and command. But they receive it to judgment as Saint Paul says, for they misuse the holy sacrament because they receive it without true repentance and without faith. For it was instituted for this reason, that it might testify that the grace and benefits of Christ are applied to those who truly repent and find comfort through faith in Christ and that these are the ones incorporated into Christ and washed in Christ’s blood.

Arand et al. further say about the Wittenburg Concord, pp. 231-232:

In 1536 Bucer led a delegation of like-minded south Germans to Wittenburg and there negotiated an agreement with Luther and his colleagues. Composed by Melanchthon, the “Wittenburg Concordia” found language to bring Luther and Bucer together on the critical text phrases for the affirmation of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Supper…Although Bucer and Luther may not have understood this formulation of the doctrine of the true presence in the same way, they were content to have come close enough, and they accepted the position of the other. Lutherans such as Johann Marbach, Nikolous Selnecker, and the other Concordists, believed its text reflected Luther’s position faithfully.

And pp. 169-170:

Bucer had played a mediating role in the earlier disputes over the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament between Luther and Zwingli, the Wittenburgers and the Swiss. The climax of his efforts to bridge the difference between the two came with his journey to Wittenburg in 1536 and the Wittenburg Concord, which his group of south German theologians and the Wittenburgers had formulated in their meeting. The Concord left itself open to interpretation in the critical question of the reception of the body and blood by those who receive it without faith, and [Nikolaus von] Amsdorf had criticized Bucer sharply in print at that time.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thanks for the research. That accords with my understanding. I would clarify that the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation does not teach a local presence either.