Protestant belief on the real presence?

[ThatOneGuy92]

Ok, Jon. Take your time. No hurry.

GKC

Heh. Sorry- couldn’t resist

 

[pablope]

I ain’t Jon, but I’ll bite

Officially speaking, Lutherans who subscribe to the Book of Concord do not believe in Consubstantiation.

** If any term is really used, it is that of Sacramental Union, which means that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present in the Eucharist, but along with the bread and wine. **

is.

Ins’t this what consubstation is…present along side the bread and wine?

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Evangelicals believe that if 2 or more gather in the name of Jesus then he would be really present.

For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Matthew 18:20 Douay-Rheims

I think Catholics believe it too!

 

[JonNC]

Jon? Jon?

Call your office.

GKC

Regarding the real presence.
From the Apology of the Augsburg Confession:

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. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, 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. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

As to who can officiate:
The Augsburg Confession:

Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.

Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that **no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called. **

So, it is His body and blood, and it takes an ordained pastor. Liturgically, the wordsof institution must be spoken, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine ARE the body and blood.

As for Sacramental Union, the intent, as I have always understood it, is not to speak of the bread and wine along side, or mixed with His body and blood. These would be consubstantiation, which we reject. The intent is not to speak of the bread and wine , body and blood in a metaphysical. When the confessions say there is bread and wine, it is followed by the statement that the bread and wine are the body and blood.

From the Epitome of the Formula of Concord:

We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as they read, according to the letter, so that the bread does not signify the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that, on account of the sacramental union, they [the bread and wine] are truly the body and blood of Christ.

Jon

 

[Kamaduck]

I think I heard a protestant say that he believed in the real presence, but that he didn’t believe that you have to be a priest to consecrate it. Do some protestants actually believe this? Maybe i heard him wrong. I know that some believe this about confession, but i’m not sure about this.

Thanks!

Most protestant groups don’t, but Lutherans do, as ThatOneGuy92 explained. I just wanted to add that they (at least the ones I know) don’t think the pastor is responsible for the real presence. It’s caused by the faith of the individual receiving it, so I don’t think they count it as real presence if the person receiving doesn’t believe (though they would say receiving it under those circumstances is sinful). Also, even though you don’t technically need a pastor for Lutheran communion, in actuality, there will always be one.

Short answer: Yes, some groups believe in the real presence.

 

[gcnuss]

I just wanted to add that they (at least the ones I know) don’t think the pastor is responsible for the real presence. It’s caused by the faith of the individual receiving it, so I don’t think they count it as real presence if the person receiving doesn’t believe (though they would say receiving it under those circumstances is sinful). Also, even though you don’t technically need a pastor for Lutheran communion, in actuality, there will always be one.

Jon’s quotes above emphasize that Lutherans believe in the necessity of an ordained person to perform the consecration. And, indeed, we believe that the presence of our Lord’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist does not depend on the faith of the person receiving the Sacrament. If Jesus’ words – “this is my body; this is the new covenant in my blood” – are to be believed, it is those words that effect the Real Presence, not how some person chooses to understand them.

 

[ThatOneGuy92]

Ins’t this what consubstation is…present along side the bread and wine?

Without going into details, yes. However, consubstantiation isn’t what Lutherans hold to.

When we say that we believe that the bread is His Body, and the wine His Blood, that is the truth of the matter. We use such language as “under the forms of bread and wine” and Sacramental Union as a condensation to human weakness. It comes down to the fact that although all sensations tell us otherwise, what appears to be bread and wine is the Body and Blood of Jesus.

To juxtapose it to Transubstantiation:
Transubstantiation states that although the accidents of bread and wine remain, and all scientific tests would show them to be so, the essence is transformed into that of the Body and Blood of Christ, correct? That, although all sensations state otherwise, we are actually truly receiving Christ in the Eucharist. Correct?

Lutherans would say that while we are truly receiving Christ’s Body and Blood, and that there is some sort of change, we are not sure how that happens. We see no need to dogmatize Transubstantiation. I understand that transubstantiation is not meant to teach how it occurs, but simply that it is meant to protect the teaching of the Real Presence. However, many believe that it is meant to teach how this occurs. Within its original context (and, indeed, within certain contexts today as well), transubstantiation was/is a good argument against those who deny the Real Presence. We (Lutherans) simply do not see the need to make this a belief considered mandatory for salvation. Is it not enough that we are truly, really, and substantially receiving the Body and Blood of Christ? Can we not take Christ at His word, and trust that the Holy Spirit effects such a great Mystery? In this regard we hold with the Orthodox, and with St. John of Damascus when he says:

“And now you ask how the bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the wine and the water become the Blood of Christ. I shall tell you. The Holy Spirit comes upon them, and achieves things which surpass every word and thought… Let it be enough for you to understand that this takes place by the Holy Spirit.”

I apologize if my earlier comment was not clear.

 

[Miriam1947]

I think I heard a protestant say that he believed in the real presence, but that he didn’t believe that you have to be a priest to consecrate it. Do some protestants actually believe this? Maybe i heard him wrong. I know that some believe this about confession, but i’m not sure about this.

Thanks!

My sister believes in the real presence and received communion in my parish even though she is not Catholic. In fact she tends to go to non-denominational churches and they rarely have communion.

We did have a conversation via email about that. I basically sent her a link from Catholic Answers.

I think the word coward applies here to me.

 

[JonNC]

Most protestant groups don’t, but Lutherans do, as ThatOneGuy92 explained. I just wanted to add that they (at least the ones I know) don’t think the pastor is responsible for the real presence.** It’s caused by the faith of the individual receiving it, so I don’t think they count it as real presence if the person receiving doesn’t believe (though they would say receiving it under those circumstances is sinful). **Also, even though you don’t technically need a pastor for Lutheran communion, in actuality, there will always be one.

Short answer: Yes, some groups believe in the real presence.

Just to support Pastor Gary’s post, ISTM that if it were to rely on the faith of the receiver, then Paul’s warning in Corinthians would have no meaning. The confessions are clear that all who receive receivethe body and blood of Christ, the faithful to forgiveness of sins, the nonbeliever to condemnation. The LCMS points to this as our reason for close communion.

Jon

 

[exnihilo]

As with most issues you need to clarify your terms. Many folks will say they believe in the real presence. Some folks will mean by that something close to the Catholic teaching. Others might mean something pretty far from that. I don’t know much about the reformed tradition (Calvanist, Presbyterian) but I believe they will teach what they call the pneumatic presence which I could not explain. Others will say they believe in the real presence as the real ‘spiritual presence’. Again, I’m not sure what they really mean by that.

 

[Kamaduck]

Just to support Pastor Gary’s post, ISTM that if it were to rely on the faith of the receiver, then Paul’s warning in Corinthians would have no meaning. The confessions are clear that all who receive receivethe body and blood of Christ, the faithful to forgiveness of sins, the nonbeliever to condemnation. The LCMS points to this as our reason for close communion.

Jon

Really? Huh. My confirmation classes were incorrect then. I was taught that as long as you have the word and believe it, it counts. As I said, though, for practical purposes it doesn’t matter- the Lutherans I know won’t gather to discuss scripture without a pastor present, much less try to have anyone else do communion.

…Of course, I could simply be misremembering. My confirmation classes were some time ago and I haven’t brushed up on it since. What you’re saying sounds accurate, so I’m probably wrong. I’m OK with that. Either way, OP’s friend is right that some non-catholics believe in the real presence. Sorry for causing confusion, I was honestly just trying to corroborate what you guys were saying.

 

[JonNC]

=Kamaduck;9946888]Really? Huh. My confirmation classes were incorrect then. I was taught that as long as you have the word and believe it, it counts

If that’s what you were taught, then you are correct - they were incorrect. From the Formula of Concord:

We believe, teach, and confess that not only the true believers [in Christ] and the worthy, but also the unworthy and unbelievers, receive the true body and blood of Christ; however, not for life and consolation, but for judgment and condemnation, if they are not converted and do not repent, 1 Cor. 11:27-29.

As I said, though, for practical purposes it doesn’t matter- the Lutherans I know won’t gather to discuss scripture without a pastor present, much less try to have anyone else do communion.

Here am I. Discussing scripture and the confessions is one thing, publically preaching and adminstering the sacraments are in the role of the ordained ministry.

…Of course, I could simply be misremembering. My confirmation classes were some time ago and I haven’t brushed up on it since. What you’re saying sounds accurate, so I’m probably wrong. I’m OK with that. Either way, OP’s friend is right that some non-catholics believe in the real presence. Sorry for causing confusion, I was honestly just trying to corroborate what you guys were saying.

No problem. Catholics have no corner on poor catechesis.

Jon