The Eucharist in Lutheran and other protestant religions?

[De_Maria]

Consubstantiation is now and always has been rejected by Lutheranism

But not by all Lutherans.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Consubstantiation is now and always has been rejected by Lutheranism

But not by all Lutherans.

And women priests are not rejected by all Catholics

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

JonNC:

Consubstantiation is now and always has been rejected by Lutheranism

But not by all Lutherans.

And women priests are not rejected by all Catholics

There’s a world of difference between Catholics and Lutherans on what we believe.

Catholics are to accept the authority of the Church. Those who don’t, sin against Christ’s authority.

Lutherans have their own Confessional authority to follow their own interpretation of Scripture.

The Bible and the Book of Concord
bookofconcord.org/confessionsandbible.php
The average Lutheran layman today may not know any Latin, but he probably knows what the phrase sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) means. It means that we Lutherans base our theology solely on the Scriptures of God and nothing else,…

 

[BartholomewB]

Jon.—This is the continuation of the post you link to on the Cranach blog:

While browsing through the bookstore at Concordia Publishing House at my final board meeting, I came across a book entitled Understanding Four Views on the Lord’s Supper (Counterpoints: Church Life). It featured a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, a Calvinist, and a Baptist reflecting on each tradition’s understanding of the Lord’s Supper, with each participant also responding to that understanding. It was a good format for theological debate. Anyway, David Scaer ably presented the Lutheran position. I appreciated his explanation of why the term “consubstantiation,” which the Catholics and the Reformed say is what Lutherans believe is rejected by Lutherans themselves. …

And yet the publisher’s blurb clearly states the Lutheran view as consubstantiation. There’s something going on here that needs explaining. I don’t know how long Zondervan has had the blurb up unchallenged on its website, but the book is now ten years old.

QUICK OVERVIEW:
Four different ways Christians understand the Lord’s Supper—Baptist view (memorialism), Reformed (spiritual presence), Lutheran (consubstantiation), and Roman Catholic (transubstantiation)—are fairly represented and debated to provide readers with an opportunity to draw their own conclusion on this important Christian institution.

http://www.zondervan.com/understanding-four-views-on-the-lord-s-supper

 

[JonNC]

Thanks. Zondervon is not a Lutheran publisher (News Corp), but it does seem weird that the blurb contradicts what the Lutheran writer, in the text of the book, says.

 

[De_Maria]

Seen on Orthodox site:

Why would a Lutheran want to leave Lutheranism?

This is a comment on a thread about Pastors leaving Lutheranism. It was posted by Brother Boris, former Lutheran now Orthodox, who has made a comment worth our consideration.

Imagine a newly ordained pastor leaving the seminary only to be assigned to some podunk parish in say, the Florida-Georgia District, for example. Here they find they are the suddenly a pastor of a parish that only begrudgingly tolerates the most minimalistic interpretation of Lutheranism in liturgy and ceremony.

The newly ordained pastor, so excited at his first call, discovered his parish celebrates the Eucharist only once a month. In fact, they really don’t like it when he calls it the Eucharist, or even the Sacrament of the Altar like the Catechism says. They refer to it exclusively as “the Lord’s Supper”, just like the Baptists.

Also like the local Baptist church down the street, this Lutheran church is predominately a bare lecture hall. Little color, white walls, no stained glass, certainly no crucifix and no statuary and no kneelers. Probably just a bland freestanding altar (built to look more like a Zwinglian table than a proper Lutheran altar), some type of modernist bare cross on the wall behind it, several ugly potted plants, lots of wall-to-wall carpeting to make the room as dead acoustically as possible, and an old Baldwin electronic organ (more of an appliance than a real musical instrument) that the church bought used from somewhere else to provide the music for the “traditional” service.

There are hymnals in the pews, but they are never used anymore. Several overhead screens have been added so that people can sing along to the texts projected thereon.
People in this parish are more committed to following the Hallmark calendar than the Liturgical Calendar. (In fact, if the truth be known, it would actually surprise many of them to know that the Church HAS an official calendar).

The High Holy Days of this parish (and they really prefer the term “congregation” as “parish” sounds way too “catholic” to their ears) are: Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, the Fourth of July, Memorial Day. Veterans Day, the so-called “National Day of Prayer” etc. This parish insists that Advent is four-weeks-of-Christmas-before-Christmas and insists that the Sanctuary be decked out in full Christmas splendor on the First Sunday After Thanksgiving. “O Come All Ye Faithful” and “O Little Town of Bethlehem” are traditional favorites for the First Sunday in Advent. Of course, this parish does not have a Christmas Day service and doesn’t understand why anyone would want such a thing. As the President of the Congregation here says, “Christmas Day is all about being with family. Why would you want to be in Church, of all places, on Christmas Day?”

And my comment:

Brother Boris is not far off from the situation I found in my first parish. I am shocked at the accuracy of his tongue-in-cheek attempt to describe what might be found in a typical Lutheran parish.
Pastoral Meanderings: Why would a Lutheran want to leave Lutheranism?

a typical Lutheran parish.

 

[AugustTherese]

“We have not been commanded to inquire as to how it may come about that the bread becomes and is Christ’s body. But God’s Word is there to tell us so. With that we remain, and that we believe.” -Martin Luther[ quoted from Wider die himml. Propheten, WA 18, 206, 20]

Here is the problem: in the Eucharist, the bread is not Christ’s body; the Body of Christ. i.e. the human flesh of Christ, did not have some sort of mystical, hypostatic union with bread. When Our Lord instituted the Eucharist, He did not say, “This is my Body in, with, and under the bread”. Jesus Christ’s divinity and especially his humanity were not sacramentally united with bread.

Furthermore, I believe it is agreed upon by Catholics and Protestants alike that we both confess Jesus Christ to be One Person; One Person, two natures, two wills, but nonetheless One Divine Person incarnate; He was not a human person and a Divine Person. To attempt to sacramentally unite, so to speak, bread and wine with the One Person of Christ goes against reason and philosophy, and Protestants will argue and contend that this “Sacramental Union” is a mystery of faith that supersedes reason and philosophy.

Two things cannot be simultaneously one thing, even in a sacramental sense. For example, a chair cannot concurrently be a tree; you either have a tree or you have a chair, you cannot have a tree-chair. The same goes for the Eucharist; there cannot be a union of two things (bread and Body) as this goes against the nature and will of God.

“Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.” [Smalcald Articles III VI 1]

Again, this does not make sense. This confession calls Jesus Christ a loaf of bread and a chalice of wine.

Aside from my measly two cents, could anyone in the most concrete and simple way compare and contrast Consubstantiation with Sacramental Union? I mean, is there really any difference in their definitions?

 

[steido01]

Whatever you were taught, it wasn’t Lutheran!

Ah, I see you were at an ELCA/LCMC group. That’ll do it. Mostly not-Lutheran, despite the name.

 

[steido01]

Yeah, “Consubstantiation” is not Lutheran teaching. It’s a term that was made up by Crypto-Calvinists who had infiltrated Lutheran churches back in the mid-to-late 1500s. They presented themselves as if they were Lutheran, but taught something radically different in an attempt to pirate the Lutheran Reformation and make it one for general “Protestantism.” They wanted to confuse Lutherans into thinking they had mistakenly taken up an Aristotelian understanding of the Sacraments, just like Roman Catholics had with Transubstantiation. That way, they could snarkily say, “See, you’re just as mistaken! Obviously, ‘our’ Dr. Luther really wanted to hold a Calvinist view of the Sacraments.” But Lutherans hold to the mystical Sacramental Union, not Consubstantiation. If anything, it’s more akin to the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Mystery than to Consubstantiation… which is probably why Lutheran pastors have less difficulty going East (but that’s another story).

Point is, Lutherans repudiate Consubstantiation. It is not Lutheran teaching.

 

[steido01]

No. Martin Luther subscribed to a mystical “Sacramental Union.”

Consubstantiation, like Transubstantiation, supposes that changes or additions happen in the ‘accidents’ and ‘substances.’ Consubstantiation essentially creates a third ‘thing’ from the combination of bread/wine with Body/Blood, while Transubstantiation essentially believes that bread/wine cease to exist altogether.

Lutherans, on the other hand, simply acknowledge that Christ is really, truly, physically present in every possible way (in, with, under, around, over, behind, whatever-- it’s real, not merely spiritual, like in Calvinism) and do not attempt to explain how this happens like Transubstatiationists or Consubstantiationists. Similar to the Orthodox. Or many pre-Tridentine Catholics, for that matter.

 

[steido01]

Here is the problem: in the Eucharist, the bread is not Christ’s body; the Body of Christ.

You’re Roman Catholic; you may want to reconsider how you worded this. Do you truly mean to deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? I think you mean to say that Christ is not eaten in a carnal sense. Obviously, Lutherans agree.

To attempt to sacramentally unite, so to speak, bread and wine with the One Person of Christ goes against reason and philosophy,

If you say so. But I’ll place Christ’s plain words over man’s finite reason and philosophy any day.

Two things cannot be simultaneously one thing, even in a sacramental sense.

Oh? How about three things, then? So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. Look, brother. We have to afford God’s Word precedence over human reason, lest we find ourselves denying the possibility of miracles.

“Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.” Smalcald Articles. Part III, Article VI. Of the Sacrament of the Altar.
Again, this does not make sense. This confession calls Jesus Christ a loaf of bread and a chalice of wine.

What does St. Paul call the Body and Blood in 1 Corinthians 11?

Aside from my measly two cents, could anyone in the most concrete and simple way compare and contrast Consubstantiation with Sacramental Union? I mean, is there really any difference in their definitions?

Certainly. Consubstantiation, like Transubstantiation, is a concept rooted in “substances” and “accidents.” In other words, they are based on reason:

• Transubstantiation reasons that the entire “substance” of the bread and wine is changed into Christ’s Body and Blood, until only the “accidents” of bread (taste, consistency, color, etc.) remain.
• Consubstantiation reasons that the bread and the wine and the Body and the Blood are united in some way that, more or less, creates some new, third substance. I don’t know of any sect today that actually believes in Consubstantiation, though even some Lutherans have been duped into using the term (but not the beliefs behind it, thank God!). Consubstantiation has been explained as:
  • As an actual creation of a third substance
  • As impanation - where the substances don’t change, but Christ’s presence is substantially stored in the substance of the bread and wine
  • As incorporation - where the substances don’t change, but Christ’s presence is mingled into the substance of the bread and wine
  • In countless other messy, over-thought interminglings of the “substances” and “accidents” in an array of almost comical combinations.
• Sacramental Union, which Lutherans actually believe, does not attempt to reason out the miracle of the Sacrament of the Altar. It simply trusts that Christ does what He says He does; that He truly, physically gives Himself for us for the forgiveness of sins in (and with/under/in every inadequate human way of understanding) the bread and the wine.

 

[JonNC]

“Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.” [Smalcald Articles III VI 1]

Again, this does not make sense. This confession calls Jesus Christ a loaf of bread and a chalice of wine.

This is what happens when someone who is thinking in metaphysical terms tries to describe a non-metaphysical understanding.

It makes no more and no less sense than Christ Himself holding bread and saying, “this is my body”. The entire point is that we do not know how this happens. Christ does not say how it happens, only that it is true. “This is my body.” Hence, it is truly and substantially and really is His body. It is not bread and body mixed together, or bread and body molecules combined. It is His body. He says so, and therefore it is so. It is a mystery beyond our comprehension or knowledge.

 

[BartholomewB]

Christ does not say how it happens, only that it is true.

Also, we have the verb in the imperative: “Do this in memory of me.” Do this, not analyze this, rationalize this, argue about this, or quarrel about this. Just do it.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Christ does not say how it happens, only that it is true.

Also, we have the verb in the imperative: “Do this in memory of me.” Do this, not analyze this, rationalize this, argue about this, or quarrel about this. Just do it.

Amen, and this is why I love John of Damascus on the topic.
_If the Word of God is living and powerful, and if the Lord does all things whatsoever he wills; if he said, “Let there be light”, and it happened; if he said, “let there be a firmament”, and it happened; …if finally the Word of God himself willingly became man and made flesh for himself out of the most pure and undefiled blood of the holy and ever Virgin, why should he not be capable of making bread his Body and wine and water his Blood?.. God said, “This is my Body”, and “This is my Blood.”

…

The body which is born of the holy Virgin is in truth a body united with divinity, not that the body which was received into the heavens descends, but that the bread itself and the wine are changed into the Lord’s body and blood. Now, if you inquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit, just as God took on Himself the flesh that subsisted in Him and was born of the holy Mother of God through the Spirit… so the bread of the altar and the wine (and water) are mysteriously changed by the invocation and presence of the Holy Spirit into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and are not two but one and the same.

…

“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”

• St. John of Damascus_

 

[JonNC]

Also like the local Baptist church down the street, this Lutheran church is predominately a bare lecture hall. Little color, white walls, no stained glass, certainly no crucifix and no statuary and no kneelers. Probably just a bland freestanding altar (built to look more like a Zwinglian table than a proper Lutheran altar), some type of modernist bare cross on the wall behind it, several ugly potted plants, lots of wall-to-wall carpeting to make the room as dead acoustically as possible, and an old Baldwin electronic organ (more of an appliance than a real musical instrument) that the church bought used from somewhere else to provide the music for the “traditional” service.

Sad, isn’t it, that some American Lutherans have jettisoned the great iconography of the Lutheran tradition in the Church.

 

[AugustTherese]

The entire point is that we do not know how this happens. Christ does not say how it happens, only that it is true

But, no one is contending “how this happens”, but rather what it is. Any miracle, especially that of the Eucharist, is a mystery of faith. It would be utterly superfluous to attempt to scrutinize how any miracle happened. To say that one substance is simultaneously two substances has nothing to do with “how this happens”, but only confounds the reality of the mystery, i.e. “This is my Body” means “This is my Body”; leave bread out of it.

Hence, it is truly and substantially and really is His body. It is not bread and body mixed together, or bread and body molecules combined. It is His body. He says so, and therefore it is so. It is a mystery beyond our comprehension or knowledge

Of course! Hence, why we Catholics believe in just that! Notice in Scripture, when Christ consecrated the bread, he mentioned nothing of bread but only: “This is my body”. To suggest anything else, i.e. “Sacramental Union” or “Consubstantiation”, is a disgrace to Jesus Christ.

 

[De_Maria]

What does St. Paul call the Body and Blood in 1 Corinthians 11?

He calls it bread and wine. But where does Jesus say this bread is from?

Hint: John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

 

[AugustTherese]

If you say so. But I’ll place Christ’s plain words over man’s finite reason and philosophy any day

Christ’s plain words, eh? Where does Christ mention anything about bread and/or wine during His consecration? Also, attempting to pit “Christ’s plain words” against reason and philosophy into a false dichotomy only denigrates the virtues of reason and logic that God blesses us with. Trying to supersede reason with faith, deliberate or inadvertent, is a sly tactic to try to convince people of believing in unreasonable things under the guise of them being a “mystery”.

Oh? How about three things, then? So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God.

Ironic how you just used reason and natural knowledge to explain the Trinity (the most philosophical term we employ to explain a revealed Divine Dogma). Did you notice, though, that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son?

We have to afford God’s Word precedence over human reason

I have no problem with that, inasmuch as your words are distinguishing between natural knowledge and divine revelations. But, distinguishing the two does not mean to intrinsically depict natural knowledge as contradicting faith:

"Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason.

Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds." - Dogmatic constitution on the Catholic faith, Chapter 4, Vatican I, 1870

What does St. Paul call the Body and Blood in 1 Corinthians 11

Right, just as Jesus called Himself the Bread that came down from Heaven. But, we both know that He did not descend as a loaf of bread.

Sacramental Union, which Lutherans actually believe, does not attempt to reason out the miracle of the Sacrament of the Altar. It simply trusts that Christ does what He says He does; that He truly, physically gives Himself for us for the forgiveness of sins in (and with/under/in every inadequate human way of understanding) the bread and the wine

I do not need to know what it is not. Where does Christ give Himself in the bread and the wine?

 

[steve-b]

I hope someone can help me but I am looking for a little insight as to exactly what Lutherans (and other protestant religions I suppose) exactly believe in regards to their communion/Eucharist service? And I guess as a follow up what is the truth regarding this?

Thanks

The Catholic Church doesn’t accept the ordinations of any Protestant religion as valid. Therefore no validly ordained priesthood, no valid consecration, and no valid Eucharist.

If you ask why that is, as a followup question, there is plenty of materials to share on that subject.

one example from the CCC

1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

 

[Wolfie]

Yesterday I asked a former Anglican this question. He said they say similar prayers but “it’s not really turning into the body of Christ.”