Pastor Jonathan Fisk doesn't know the Eucharist

[benjohnson]

So in essence, what you are saying is…in a debate, out of frustration, Luther came up with SU…and this is how the Lutheran doctrine of SU was borne…not from careful deliberation…

I see noting untoward - I presume that If more christian debates ended with saying the words of our Lord, the church militant would be more unified.

 

[steido01]

I’m not arguing with you, but I just found three tracts on Catholic Answers that say Luther taught consubstantiation and that the Lutheran Eucharist is consubstantiation, but Lutherans do not call it that, and that term is not in any Lutheran documents, but “consubstantiation” is the best term to describe Lutheran communion. Perhaps those tracts are wrong?

Yes, the tracts are wrong. To Lutherans, Consubstantiation is (along with Transubstantiation), a means of explaining the Divine Mystery of the Lord’s Supper. Lutherans are hesitant to subscribe to any explanation of this miracle, because Christ did not explain how it happens. He simply tells us “This is my Body.” So we take him at his word. Lutherans are a bit like the Orthodox in that regard; we simply leave it a mystery.

When I say that my understanding of Lutheran communion is “con” substantiation, I mean “with.” Jesus is with the bread. Con=with. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession that Jon kindly posted, it says that "the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine…

So it says Jesus is there, with the bread and wine. Isn’t that the definition of consubstantiation?

No, that’s not the definition of Consubstantiation. Someone posted the blurb from the LCMS’s Christian Cyclopedia earlier. When Lutherans say, “in, with, and under,” they do not mean those words only physically. What we mean is that in every way, in a mystical, heavenly, earthly, physical, upside-down, right-side-up, backwards, frontwards, sideways, otherways, and all ways – it is Christ’s Body. How’s that happen? We don’t know. But Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation couldn’t even come close to describing it. It’s a mysterious, Sacramental Union.

To clarify, as a Catholic with a Catholic point of view defending the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, when Pastor Fisk says Catholics re-sacrifice Christ in the Eucharist, that tells me in about the one second it took him to say it that he doesn’t know the Catholic Eucharist. I have no doubt that in four years of LCMS seminary he became quite well acquainted with the Lutheran view of the Eucharist. My complaint is that in all that time he seems never to have read anything but Reformation era polemics authored exclusively by Protestants to try to understand the Catholic view of the Eucharist.

My question regarding the Lutheran view of the Eucharist is not so much whether and how they believe in the Real Presence; it’s more what is happening when a Lutheran pastor says the words and through the power of God makes present the Real Presence. Catholics believe this is our participation in the once for all sacrifice of the Crucifixion, that at that moment of the Mass, the entire Church on earth and in Heaven is present at the foot of the Cross. If the Lutheran Eucharist isn’t that sacrifice or any sacrifice, what is it?

That the Sacrament of the Altar transports us outside of time and place, enjoins us with the entire Church – both Militant and Triumphant – and puts as at the foot of the cross is not debated by Lutherans. What Lutherans object to, and what Pastor Fisk explains in the video is the perceived danger of the Roman Catholic understanding of that once-and-for-all Sacrifice. When the Roman Catholic view is misunderstood (as it widely was in Luther’s day and is sometimes today), it can seem like we puny humans are actually joining Christ on the cross, even in some small part. That would make us our own saviors, our own gods – the ultimate blasphemy! And so, Lutherans recoil from calling the Mass a Sacrifice made by us or our pastors. In the few instances where Lutherans do describe it as a Sacrifice, Lutherans are generally overly-clear that is is a true re-presentation of Christ’s one, total Sacrifice - not our own. Does that help a bit?

I think Pastor Fisk was just trying to explain the potential dangers, and it came across as a certain danger. I have no doubt that an LCMS-educated pastor has a solid understanding of Rome’s, Geneva’s, and countless other view of the Eucharist. It’s also important to consider his audience. He’s speaking to young folks who are still green in the faith. They’re just starting to ask the tough questions. They’re just getting off the milk; they can’t shoot the whiskey yet.

 

[steve_b]

You are getting neither my point nor that of the OP. Yes as Catholics we must affirm that the Lutheran Eucharist is invalid. But that is not what the OP raised. Lutherans DO believe in the Real Presence and that is a point we cannot dispute.

Yet “Belief” in something, doesn’t necessarily make it true.
p:

So for proper argument, we address the premise raised. The point of contention was the sacrifice of the Mass. You responded by raising Protestantism in general as a heresy. Even if you are correct, your approach to the debate is incorrect because you did not address the premise. Rather you attacked their belief system as a whole. This is variation of ad hominem and is a logical fallacy.

that noisy 15 min video was ripe with subject matter. There are ALL kinds of premises to deal with in that video… I just cut to the chase.
p:

For the purposes of THIS argument, the point of the Real Presence CAN be conceded.

can you be specific? what is it that’s conceded?
p:

Therefore the real point can be argued: is the Mass a sacrifice? This is debating 101. Part of this includes laying down as much common ground as possible.

Let’s look at this as an example.

If you (not a validly ordained ministerial priest)

• set up a table in your house and called it an altar,
• called your family and neighbors to celebrate the eucharist with you
• put bread and wine on that altar
• read scripture
• recited exactly the words of consecration over the bread and wine

Would you have the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist there on the altar, because you personally “believe” in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and so does your family and neighbors?

 

[porthos11]

Let’s look at this as an example.

If you (not a validly ordained ministerial priest)

• set up a table in your house and called it an altar,
• called your family and neighbors to celebrate the eucharist with you
• put bread and wine on that altar
• read scripture
• recited exactly the words of consecration over the bread and wine

Would you have the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist there on the altar, because you personally “believe” in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist and so does your family and neighbors?

This is not the point of the opening post. We already know he is not and we know the Lutheran Eucharist is invalid. There is no argument here.

I’m just saying your approach to debate is deficient. In post #4 you did not address what the OP raised: that the Mass is a sacrifice. You just dismissed the argument by saying Lutherans have no valid orders anyway and that Protestantism is a heresy. You did not address the allegation that Catholics are wrong about the Mass being a sacrifice. Your argument can be broken down this way:

P. Lutherans claim the Mass is not a Sacrifice.
p. Lutherans do not have valid holy orders and are heretics.
C. Therefore, the Lutheran claim is wrong and the Mass is a Sacrifice.

How is that even remotely logical? That’s an ad hominem, and is invalid.

That Lutherans believe in the Real Presence is something not to be debated. They DO, and it’s a fact. That’s not the same as them having it, but that’s not the point of the OP. Their premise, not under debate, for the purposes of this thread is that Jesus is Present in the Eucharist. THAT is the point that can be conceded, because in that, we agree.

This leaves only the premise at hand: The Mass is a Sacrifice. And here is where your argument fails because you simply dismissed the Lutheran body itself has having no Holy Orders and being a heretical sect, as if that has any bearing whatsoever to the Mass being a Sacrifice. Argue the point on the Mass’s own merits, not on the deficiencies of your opponent. That’s proper debate, and that’s proper argumentation. Ad hominems make for poor discussion.

 

[steido01]

Argue the point on [your position’s] own merits, not on the deficiencies of your opponent. That’s proper debate, and that’s proper argumentation. Ad hominems make for poor discussion.

This is great advice for Christians in all situations. Thank you for your contribution to the thread.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The Catholic Church has never ruled on the orders of many of the thousands of specific Protestant denominations, but the concepts of ministers, priests, pastors, orders, etc. in Protestantism, in their natures, do not even attempt to imitate the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed, the denial of orders as a sacrament would put immense doubt on the validity of the orders of those who deny it.

Also, in the interest of charity, perhaps call it the Catholic Church. Referring always to Rome without reference to the catholic mark of the Church is a tired holdover from the very anti-Catholic English Reformation.

The Catholic Church did rule, however, on Anglican orders.

 

[conRep12]

That the Sacrament of the Altar transports us outside of time and place, enjoins us with the entire Church – both Militant and Triumphant – and puts as at the foot of the cross is not debated by Lutherans. What Lutherans object to, and what Pastor Fisk explains in the video is the perceived danger of the Roman Catholic understanding of that once-and-for-all Sacrifice. When the Roman Catholic view is misunderstood (as it widely was in Luther’s day and is sometimes today), it can seem like we puny humans are actually joining Christ on the cross, even in some small part. That would make us our own saviors, our own gods – the ultimate blasphemy! And so, Lutherans recoil from calling the Mass a Sacrifice made by us or our pastors. In the few instances where Lutherans do describe it as a Sacrifice, Lutherans are generally overly-clear that is is a true re-presentation of Christ’s one, total Sacrifice - not our own. Does that help a bit?

That is kind of my point about his harkening back to the confusion of the Reformation to criticize the Catholic Church. Misperception and Misunderstanding are more the result of bad catechesis than arguments against the Mass as sacrifice.

That does help out a bit on the Lutheran understanding of what is happening in the Eucharist. Basically, the Lutheran problem with the Catholic Mass is that we claim to unite our offerings to Christ’s offering on the Cross?

I think Pastor Fisk was just trying to explain the potential dangers, and it came across as a certain danger. I have no doubt that an LCMS-educated pastor has a solid understanding of Rome’s, Geneva’s, and countless other view of the Eucharist. It’s also important to consider his audience. He’s speaking to young folks who are still green in the faith. They’re just starting to ask the tough questions. They’re just getting off the milk; they can’t shoot the whiskey yet.

I’m not so sure he does understand. This is not his first bald assertion about Catholic belief that is quickly demonstrably false but was widely ascribed to Catholics during the Reformation. I can forgive the tone in consideration of the audience, but the general lack of charity and the misinformation about Catholicism are not necessary to maintaining viewer interest. Sometimes he does engage Catholicism on what it actually is, but often as not he swats down a straw man that only the most confused Catholic might believe and that the Church certainly does not teach. Where does the term “re-sacrifice” appear in anything other than Protestant polemics?

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I was about to offer a response by truncating a bunch of porthos11’s post, but upon further reflection I’ve decided that it’s too good of a post to deserve truncation, so here it is in its entirety:

This is not the point of the opening post. We already know he is not and we know the Lutheran Eucharist is invalid. There is no argument here.

I’m just saying your approach to debate is deficient. In post #4 you did not address what the OP raised: that the Mass is a sacrifice. You just dismissed the argument by saying Lutherans have no valid orders anyway and that Protestantism is a heresy. You did not address the allegation that Catholics are wrong about the Mass being a sacrifice. Your argument can be broken down this way:

P. Lutherans claim the Mass is not a Sacrifice.
p. Lutherans do not have valid holy orders and are heretics.
C. Therefore, the Lutheran claim is wrong and the Mass is a Sacrifice.

How is that even remotely logical? That’s an ad hominem, and is invalid.

In fairness to Steve, I’d say that there’s another implicit premise, namely that those with invalid holy orders and/or those who are heretics are incapable of speaking truth. It would work something like this:

P1: Lutherans claim the Mass is not a Sacrifice,
P2: Lutherans do not have valid holy orders and are heretics,
P3: Those without valid holy orders and/or those who are heretics are incapable of coming to true theological conclusions,
C: Therefore the Lutheran claim is wrong and the Mass is a Sacrifice.

This would be a logically sound argument, except for the fact that the implicit premise I put in italics is a false premise, even by the standards of the Catholic Church.

That Lutherans believe in the Real Presence is something not to be debated. They DO, and it’s a fact. That’s not the same as them having it, but that’s not the point of the OP. Their premise, not under debate, for the purposes of this thread is that Jesus is Present in the Eucharist. THAT is the point that can be conceded, because in that, we agree.

This leaves only the premise at hand: The Mass is a Sacrifice. And here is where your argument fails because you simply dismissed the Lutheran body itself has having no Holy Orders and being a heretical sect, as if that has any bearing whatsoever to the Mass being a Sacrifice. Argue the point on the Mass’s own merits, not on the deficiencies of your opponent. That’s proper debate, and that’s proper argumentation. Ad hominems make for poor discussion.

 

[steido01]

That is kind of my point about his harkening back to the confusion of the Reformation to criticize the Catholic Church. Misperception and Misunderstanding are more the result of bad catechesis than arguments against the Mass as sacrifice.

Understood, and I generally agree with this sentiment as it pertains to understanding others. But if the misunderstanding is terribly widespread, is it possible that the fault isn’t in the catechesis, but in the explanation itself? I’ve asked this question before, and I’ve yet to receive a satisfactory reply.

That does help out a bit on the Lutheran understanding of what is happening in the Eucharist. Basically, the Lutheran problem with the Catholic Mass is that we claim to unite our offerings to Christ’s offering on the Cross?

Entirely. Lutherans have no other objection, and this is why they have retained the traditional Mass (or, rather, “Gottesdienst”).

I’m not so sure he does understand. This is not his first bald assertion about Catholic belief that is quickly demonstrably false but was widely ascribed to Catholics during the Reformation. I can forgive the tone in consideration of the audience, but the general lack of charity and the misinformation about Catholicism are not necessary to maintaining viewer interest. Sometimes he does engage Catholicism on what it actually is, but often as not he swats down a straw man that only the most confused Catholic might believe and that the Church certainly does not teach. Where does the term “re-sacrifice” appear in anything other than Protestant polemics?

Not to prop up a tu quoque, but the same is sometimes true of apologists of all stripes, even the respected Catholic. I’ve come across articles that entirely misconstrue Lutheran belief; New Advent has no excuse for its mistreatment of the Lutheran Sacramental Union, for example, yet it still mistakenly labels Lutherans as holding to Consubstantiation! Worse, I can read things written by Catholic priests that totally misconstrue Lutheran doctrine. Fr. Hardon is one example, and he was raised in the same home as Lutherans. It’s wrong, and I wish all of these folks, including Pastor Fisk, would be a bit more charitable in their explanations. But I understand why it happens.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I have been on this thread since Page 1 and am confused. How do Lutherans understand Christ’s presence in the Eucharist?

Could I just get a short answer and not a post that takes half a page.
Thanks.

 

[steido01]

I have been on this thread since Page 1 and am confused. How do Lutherans understand Christ’s presence in the Eucharist?

Could I just get a short answer and not a post that takes half a page.
Thanks.

From Luther’s Small Catechism:

VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.
​

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words “For you” require altogether believing hearts.

 

[7_Sorrows]

From Luther’s Small Catechism:

thanks. how does that differ from Catholicism?

 

[porthos11]

P1: Lutherans claim the Mass is not a Sacrifice,
P2: Lutherans do not have valid holy orders and are heretics,
P3: Those without valid holy orders and/or those who are heretics are incapable of coming to true theological conclusions,
C: Therefore the Lutheran claim is wrong and the Mass is a Sacrifice.

This would be a logically sound argument, except for the fact that the implicit premise I put in italics is a false premise, even by the standards of the Catholic Church.

You are correct; it is a false premise because the Lutherans are in fact capable of orthodox conclusions. Their understanding of the Trinity, Incarnation and Hypostatic Union, for example, are all correct.

 

[boomerang]

I have been on this thread since Page 1 and am confused. How do Lutherans understand Christ’s presence in the Eucharist?

Could I just get a short answer and not a post that takes half a page.
Thanks.

I’d like to know, too. I still haven’t gotten an answer. My take is - the average Lutheran in the pews believes that Jesus is* in* the bread. They don’t have any opinion as to how He gets into, or with the bread. He is just somehow there, and the process is a mystery. My question is (I thought) a pretty simple one: Does the bread become Jesus, or is Jesus *with *the bread?

Perhaps I might get a better answer if I ask it this way: If no one eats the consecrated bread, and it is left in the bowl, or on the table or wherever uneaten Eucharist goes, does it remain the body of Christ, or does it revert back to normal Jesus-less bread?

 

[7_Sorrows]

I’d like to know, too. I still haven’t gotten an answer. My take is - the average Lutheran in the pews believes that Jesus is* in* the bread. They don’t have any opinion as to how He gets into, or with the bread. He is just somehow there, and the process is a mystery. My question is (I thought) a pretty simple one: Does the bread become Jesus, or is Jesus *with *the bread?

Perhaps I might get a better answer if I ask it this way: If no one eats the consecrated bread, and it is left in the bowl, or on the table or wherever uneaten Eucharist goes, does it remain the body of Christ, or does it revert back to normal Jesus-less bread?

Glad to know I am not alone waiting for the answer.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Perhaps I might get a better answer if I ask it this way: If no one eats the consecrated bread, and it is left in the bowl, or on the table or wherever uneaten Eucharist goes, does it remain the body of Christ, or does it revert back to normal Jesus-less bread?

Lutherans treat the consecrated but unused host and wine with reverence. We do not know from Scripture the precise way that the elements become His Body and His Blood, and we don’t know if or when it no longer is - so consecrated wafers are reserved separately and never re-consecrated. Normally our pastor drinks any remaining wine, or it is poured into the earth.

It’s not that I would say that transubstantiation is incorrect as a process, it just seems unnecessary to describe it in any terms other than what Jesus said - This IS my Body.

 

[steido01]

thanks. how does that differ from Catholicism?

In many ways, it doesn’t. We both profess the truly Real Presence. Non-Christians often are entirely oblivious to the subtle differences, and some Protestants like to poke Lutherans for “basically being Papists.” But the difference is significant enough to keep our communions separate, and more “old fashioned” Lutherans will make sure you know that.

I’d like to know, too. I still haven’t gotten an answer. My take is - the average Lutheran in the pews believes that Jesus is* in* the bread. They don’t have any opinion as to how He gets into, or with the bread. He is just somehow there, and the process is a mystery. My question is (I thought) a pretty simple one: Does the bread become Jesus, or is Jesus *with *the bread?

No Lutheran, if he is catechized, should ever think that Jesus is in any way confined inside the bread, as if he were filling the holes in Swiss Cheese or stuck inside the bread through impanation. We know only what Jesus told us; that “This [bread] is my Body.” We put a period there and simply accept the incomprehensible mystery of Christ’s words. Catholicism, in a well-meaning attempt to make this miracle make sense to the laity, places a comma and explains that the Bread actually stops being bread – but Christ never said that.

Perhaps I might get a better answer if I ask it this way: If no one eats the consecrated bread, and it is left in the bowl, or on the table or wherever uneaten Eucharist goes, does it remain the body of Christ, or does it revert back to normal Jesus-less bread?

It’s actually a moot question to Lutherans. Our pastors only consecrate the bread and wine when it is intended to be eaten – during the Divine Service. We take Christ seriously when He said, “Take and eat.” He did not tell us to save some in a bowl for later. During the service, our elders carefully count the number in attendance so that no more is consecrated than necessary. Lutheran practice is to consume everything during communion.

On the rare occasion that any remains, it is kept separate from the unconsecrated. Again, we take Christ seriously – He never said whether His Presence persists or not, so we play it safe and assume it does, treating any remaining with due reverence. A previous post of mine might help to explain. A real-life example: a shaking, elderly Luther once spilled some of the cup while communing his flock. He knelt to the ground and lapped up the Blood like a dog. The congregation was so moved, they burst into tears. On another occasion, when another pastor spilled on the altar and could not remove the stain, Luther cut out the portion of the Altar and had it burned, according to the ancient custom of burning the remains.

 

[steido01]

It’s not that I would say that transubstantiation is incorrect as a process, it just seems unnecessary to describe it in any terms other than what Jesus said - This IS my Body.

Right. For all we know, transubstantiation might very well be the way that God delivers the miracle to us. But Jesus never said this, and there is no Scriptural support for this. Because the Sacraments are the vehicle through which God delivers His Grace to us, it is best to simply do as Christ instituted, neither adding nor detracting from His command to “Take, eat.”

 

[steve_b]

This is not the point of the opening post.

I chose to respond to this question "where/when" do Lutherans get their Real Presence? from post #1

porthos:

We already know he is not and we know the Lutheran Eucharist is invalid. There is no argument here.

I’m just saying your approach to debate is deficient. In post #4 you did not address what the OP raised: that the Mass is a sacrifice.

here’s post #4

I chose to respond to the op’s original question

namely, "where/when" do Lutherans get their Real Presence?

To me, he’s asking where is their evidence for, and where is their authority to make the real presence happen?
p:

You did not address the allegation that Catholics are wrong about the Mass being a sacrifice.

I chose another direction.

Your argument can be broken down this way:

P. Lutherans claim the Mass is not a Sacrifice.
p. Lutherans do not have valid holy orders and are heretics.
C. Therefore, the Lutheran claim is wrong and the Mass is a Sacrifice.

How is that even remotely logical? That’s an ad hominem, and is invalid.

I didn’t address that premise.

If you want to address that premise then do it.
p:

That Lutherans believe in the Real Presence is something not to be debated.

'Believing" their communion “is” the real presence, doesn’t mean it is.

That’s the point I address.
p:

That’s not the same as them having it,

BINGO!!! so what’s the issue
p:

but that’s not the point of the OP.

On the contrary. The op raised many points by adding the video. I picked one point, what makes a eucharist valid, and addressed that.

As I said, I focused on the question "where/when" do Lutherans get their Real Presence? "

You want to pick another point raised, the stage is yours.
p:

Their premise, not under debate, for the purposes of this thread is that Jesus is Present in the Eucharist.

Jesus is present body blood soul and divinity in OUR Eucharist, …not theirs.
p:

This leaves only the premise at hand: The Mass is a Sacrifice.

I didn’t address that, I went for another point.
p:

And here is where your argument fails because you simply dismissed the Lutheran body itself has having no Holy Orders and being a heretical sect, -]*as if that has any bearing whatsoever to the Mass being a Sacrifice. */-]

I didn’t address the mass. But I will address your comment about the Lutheran body

From then Card Ratzinger when he was prefect for the doctrine of the faith under JPII.

Excerpt
“…to be a Church the community must be “legitimate”; they are legitimate when they are “united with their pastors”. What does this mean? In the first place, no one can make a Church by himself. A group cannot simply get together, read the New Testament and declare: “At present we are the Church because the Lord is present wherever two or three are gathered in His name”.The element of “receiving” belongs essentially to the Church, just as faith comes from “hearing” and is not the result of one’s decision or reflection. Faith is a converging with something I could neither imagine nor produce on my own; faith has to come to meet me. We call the structure of this encounter, a “Sacrament”. It is part of the fundamental form of a sacrament that it be received and not self-administered. No one can baptize himself. No one can ordain himself. No one can forgive his own sins. Perfect repentance cannot remain something interior—of its essence it demands the form of encounter of the Sacrament. This too is a result of a sacrament’s fundamental structure as an encounter [with Christ]…”
from https://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFECCV2.HTM

iow, because Lutheranism in particular and protestantism in general are all 100% manmade, they aren’t legitimate churches

So when you say to me "you simply dismissed the Lutheran body itself " it’s not without reason for me.
p:

Argue the point on the Mass’s own merits, not on the deficiencies of your opponent. That’s proper debate, and that’s proper argumentation. Ad hominems make for poor discussion.

I chose to respond to another point that was raised. Everything I said is properly referenced.

 

[boomerang]

Lutherans treat the consecrated but unused host and wine with reverence. We do not know from Scripture the precise way that the elements become His Body and His Blood, and we don’t know if or when it no longer is - so consecrated wafers are reserved separately and never re-consecrated. Normally our pastor drinks any remaining wine, or it is poured into the earth.

It’s not that I would say that transubstantiation is incorrect as a process, it just seems unnecessary to describe it in any terms other than what Jesus said - This IS my Body.

In many ways, it doesn’t. We both profess the truly Real Presence. Non-Christians often are entirely oblivious to the subtle differences, and some Protestants like to poke Lutherans for “basically being Papists.” But the difference is significant enough to keep our communions separate, and more “old fashioned” Lutherans will make sure you know that.

No Lutheran, if he is catechized, should ever think that Jesus is in any way confined inside the bread, as if he were filling the holes in Swiss Cheese or stuck inside the bread through impanation. We know only what Jesus told us; that “This [bread] is my Body.” We put a period there and simply accept the incomprehensible mystery of Christ’s words. Catholicism, in a well-meaning attempt to make this miracle make sense to the laity, places a comma and explains that the Bread actually stops being bread – but Christ never said that.

It’s actually a moot question to Lutherans. Our pastors only consecrate the bread and wine when it is intended to be eaten – during the Divine Service. We take Christ seriously when He said, “Take and eat.” He did not tell us to save some in a bowl for later. During the service, our elders carefully count the number in attendance so that no more is consecrated than necessary. Lutheran practice is to consume everything during communion.

On the rare occasion that any remains, it is kept separate from the unconsecrated. Again, we take Christ seriously – He never said whether His Presence persists or not, so we play it safe and assume it does, treating any remaining with due reverence. A previous post of mine might help to explain. A real-life example: a shaking, elderly Luther once spilled some of the cup while communing his flock. He knelt to the ground and lapped up the Blood like a dog. The congregation was so moved, they burst into tears. On another occasion, when another pastor spilled on the altar and could not remove the stain, Luther cut out the portion of the Altar and had it burned, according to the ancient custom of burning the remains.

Thank you for your answers. I understand it better now.