Lutheran theology is not specific as to the duration of the presence. The concern of the Reformers was the use of the reliquae in ways not connected to Christ’s command, that we eat and drink.
Thanks! Would it be fair of me to say that that seems at least one important distinction? I think it would be. What do you think?
Also, I don’t quite understand what you mean by this. Could you please explain, again, for me? I’m not familiar with nuances regarding this topic.
The Reformers did not like some of the practices surrounding the reliquae, specifically the Corpus Christi Procession. They were split on whether or not Eucharistic Adoration outside the sacramental act was proper, Luther believing it was ok, Melanchthon not.
I’m not Lutheran, but as I understand the conundrum; the command from Jesus was specifically to take the blessed bread and eat it, take the blessed wine and drink it. The command says nothing about keeping it, adoring it, etc…
There’s another command that says to take it to the Church, not to make a new one.
There’s another command that says to take it to the Church, not to make a new one.
This has nothing to do with the question that the other poster asked.As far as keeping the remaining hosts, that, to me, seems more due to practical necessity. Maybe that’s why in some churches I’ve been to, the faithful place one unconsecrated host in a " dish" before Mass, so as to avoid excessive amounts? That’s why I asked whether or not Lutherans believe the Presence never leaves. If it doesn’t, then of course we would reverence the Eucharist, no? Or should we eat all of the Hosts during every Mass? How does one handle this? I think the Church’s practice arose out of practicality over time. I also see reserving the Sacrament as a quite literal fulfillment of Jesus’ promise that He would be with us always, until the end of the age.
The early Lutherans did not agree on that question so the custom of not reserving anything became the norm. However, the Lutheran Confessions seem to favor the opinion that the real presence does not endure when the Eucharist is reserved.
Jesus also said ,that unless one (Luke 14:26) " hate not his father,and mother and wife and children…" " he cannot be my disciple"
Bernard, Read in context of the entire passage. St Paul is correcting the absuses of the Lords Supper mentioned in v17. - v22. He’s reinforcing that he learned from The Lord about the Last Supper and that the preliminary fellowship meal is not necessary especially as it was causing division between the rich and poor. He summarizes this point in v33.
We have to be careful here because there are different references to the body of Christ; one is the bread and one is the congregation. In 11:29 you can see that Paul does not say they are not discerning the Lord’s body and blood, but just “body.” That is the body of believers, and why he is castigating them for dividing themselves up. Where two or more are gathered in His name, He is there in the midst of them, and we are recognize the whole body of Christ together and treat each other as such.
You got me thinking with what you said.
I love Scripture, and you strike me as someone who does too. However, I suppose I see no conflict in the situation, because of Tradition and the Church’s understanding that the true presence doesn’t leave. I guess I don’t see Scriptural support indicating that Christ did in fact mean His presence would leave. Thanks for getting me thinking.That is an interesting point that Paul only mentions the body in verse 27, but I wouldn’t personally make too much of it. Also, when you say “one is the bread and one is the congregation,” remember that Paul actually calls the Church not only “one body,” but also “one bread” as well. And the reason the Church is “one bread and one body” is that “we are all partakers of that one bread.” So we should not subject the primary sense to the secondary sense. We are part of Christ’s body only because we partake of his body.
But again, I’ve been told that I am indeed part of the body of Christ, and I’ve never partaken of the RC Eucharist. Yes, we all agree that we are partakers of the One Bread, Who is Jesus Christ, but of course we disagree on how that is. I’m not actually reading into Paul’s statement, because we can clearly see that when the elements are mentioned they are mentioned together.
It would be folly though, IMHO, to separate the two. That’s why I’ve been having an interesting discussion in one of the “closed communion” threads. Also, “unworthily” is an adverb describing the manner of partaking, and the way we partake unworthily is to eat and drink not discerning the Lord’s body in the collection of those brothers and sisters around us. Of course, I could be wrong, but the more I study the use here I don’t think I am.
So in the Last Supper narrative, Christ identifies the bread as his body and Paul is continuing with that image at the front of his mind. I would say that thought Paul only speaks of the body in 11:29, he intends the blood as well implicitly, growing tired of mentioning both every time when he had already firmly established what he was talking about. Besides, we do not believe that Christ’s body is present apart from his blood.
This bit, I feel, actually drives the point home; the elements are mentioned together, not apart, and I feel it dangerous to think that Paul at this one most important point (speaking of temporary damnation, not permanent) leaves out the “blood.” Again, there are indeed critical implications here, connected to the fact that we are supposed to love one another, and recognize each other as brothers and sisters, and to act accordingly.
For those that do believe there is a literal change, and a real presence, I would think that consuming it all would indeed be the way to go, since it is connected to the command of eat and drink, and setting of a supper. However, I do believe that if we grant the real presence then it would indeed last as long as there is appearance of bread and wine.
Kliska, no matter where the apostles went, no matter where you find the early Christian Churches, you find consistently without exception, a belief in the Real Presence. It is with this understanding the John 6 needs to be read. You do understand that the biblical canon was put together in part to have a universal set of readings for the Catholic Mass?
I am aware that this is the teaching, as of yet, I don’t agree with it (the scriptural interpretation, esp. John 6), nor do I believe we see a “monolith” of teaching from all ECF’s supporting a somatic real presence, though as you can see from my OP I’m reading up on it from people’s favorite apologetics. I’ve read Scott Hahn the most so far, but still no “lightbulb” moment.
Can you support this statement?