The Eucharist

[benjohnson]

I think the uncrossable gap here is that Luther believed that God “alone” offers the Sacrifice and that we only receive it. This causes me to wonder: if Lutherans stop their services for some reason, would that mean that God’s stops offering His sacrifice to us?

I’d love to meet the Lutherans that you’ve met that have been so stridently wrong about what the church teaches and whack them over the head with our giant book of theology.

The concept of the Body of Christ is not alien to Lutherans at all - it’s how we sleep well at night, knowing that our numbers as small.

We would say we participate in the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior. You’ll often hear us say we ‘received’ communion, but that would be inaccurate.

From The Liturgy of Vespers:

“When we participate in the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we proclaim Christ’s death…”

…

I’m not sure about your hypothetical question - its rather impossible for me to absorb the predicate.

 

[benjohnson]

So don’t! A Lutheran friend advised me that certain sects of Lutherans are known today as “Hellfire and damnation” Lutherans.

My gut reaction would be to point our that those that don’t profess the creeds and confessions of the church aren’t Lutheran.

That there are many people who say they follow the Lutheran church, but don’t isn’t a shock unfortunately.

 

[po18guy]

My gut reaction would be to point our that those that don’t profess the creeds and confessions of the church aren’t Lutheran.

That there are many people who say they follow the Lutheran church, but don’t isn’t a shock unfortunately.

The “pro-everything” Catholics show that we both have a lot of work to do.

 

[po18guy]

I’d love to meet the Lutherans that you’ve met that have been so stridently wrong about what the church teaches and whack them over the head with our giant book of theology.

The concept of the Body of Christ is not alien to Lutherans at all - it’s how we sleep well at night, knowing that our numbers as small.

We would say we participate in the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior. You’ll often hear us say we ‘received’ communion, but that would be inaccurate.

From The Liturgy of Vespers:

“When we participate in the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, we proclaim Christ’s death…”

…

I’m not sure about your hypothetical question - its rather impossible for me to absorb the predicate.

Will look deeper into Luther’s concept of the sacrifice.

 

[JonNC]

=po18guy;11729244]I think the uncrossable gap here is that Luther believed that God “alone” offers the Sacrifice and that we only receive it. This causes me to wonder: if Lutherans stop their services for some reason, would that mean that God’s stops offering His sacrifice to us?

But we do add to it. We add to it our thanks and praise, knowing our unworthiness to receive, but because of Christ’s efforts, we can and do receive.

Luther and Calvin seem very close on the concept of nearly everything being in God’s power and very little remaining in ours. Yet, even the Lutheran service requires a cooperation with God’s grace. Luther feared “works” so profoundly that it seems he over-reacted and placed it all in God’s hands. What does this make of Christ’s parable of the good Samaritan? That was pure works, motivated by love - yet it was pleasing to God, was it not?

It could also be said that, at that time and place, there was an overemphasis of works that he may have over-reacted to. That said, no where in Lutheran teaching is works rejected, or discouraged, or even minimized, though we know that even the good works of the regenerate of due to grace, the Spirit working through and in us.
What it makes of the parable is the indictment of those of us who are regenerate, and yet choose at times to not do the good works He called us to do, as if because of faith we can choose not to do good works. Good works are required of us, and we do them not out of fear, but out of joyful obedience, ever thankful for the gift of grace, which through faith, justifies.

Jon

 

[po18guy]

But we do add to it. We add to it our thanks and praise, knowing our unworthiness to receive, but because of Christ’s efforts, we can and do receive.

But, even though you are a member of the Body of Christ, you cannot add yourself to the sacrifice, correct?

It could also be said that, at that time and place, there was an overemphasis of works that he may have over-reacted to.

I think that this goes without saying. The papacy had become very imperial, the conduct of certain members of the hieerarchy inexcusable. But, in Europe, it seems that all religious authorities had become way too cozy with purely political authorities. Rather than help to heal, it accelerated corruption and boosted division as the split widened.

That said, no where in Lutheran teaching is works rejected, or discouraged, or even minimized, though we know that even the good works of the regenerate of due to grace, the Spirit working through and in us.

The difference being that Luther held that we can (could) do nothing to please God. Dunno if that holds today.

What it makes of the parable is the indictment of those of us who are regenerate, and yet choose at times to not do the good works He called us to do, as if because of faith we can choose not to do good works. Good works are required of us, and we do them not out of fear, but out of joyful obedience, ever thankful for the gift of grace, which through faith, justifies.

I note that faith is a grace received from God, but becomes a work - inasmuch as it must be nurtured, sustained, grown and practiced.

It also occurs to me that we are speaking of two different things: Lutherans about 21st century Lutheranism, and me about Luther and his 16th century German mindset. There are differences - a softening, if you will.

 

[Buddyroe]

This part is the section of scripture that must be tackled and understood in the cultural context of the happenings of the Passover meal. I’ve been reading RC apologetics about their belief in transubstantiation and one Apologist argues that the reason it cannot be symbolic is that the symbol (the bread) does not adequately portray Him symbolically in a concrete manner. To see the folly in this it is important to literally see the pieces of Matzoh that would have been used at the feast.

This piece of bread is indeed a specific one, and is also pure, with no leaven (and much more pure even than Matzoh at other times, since the prep for Passover insures that), it is pierced, and it is bruised in appearance from the heat that bakes it. When it is broken, it is truly broken visibly and even auditorily, and all partake of broken pieces. The blessing was specific, and then the cup was a specific cup as described above. It is indeed truly a representation.

When Paul says that we participate in it, it is compared to those partaking of the symbols of demons. In short, whatever we show forth, we participate in externally and internally. Jesus and His death is brought present, not only for us, but for all those witnessing us partaking, including the watching angels. As the Body of Christ we all show forth and preside over these happenings as Jesus did Himself. We are indeed all a part of the priesthood, and are intimately and actually participating in Him while we do these things, with the focus always on Christ.

I agree with you of course and thank you for adding more Matzoh details it enriches everyone’s understanding. I will however stand by my acknowledgement that RC doctrine regarding the ‘True Presence’ is reasonable within the practice of good exegeses.

Bonus detail, the disciple who Jesus loved (John) is described by himself as ‘leaning on Jesus’ bosom’ (John 18:23). Nefarious individuals have made suggestions this indicates St. John was shall I say not quite straight so to speak. Of course that impression is unjustified, knowledge of the Passover feast easily clarifies that St John was sitting on right hand of Jesus because of the feast practice of demonstrating willingness to quickly leave their home to flee from danger. This was demonstrated by leaning their body drastically towards the left and since everyone was seated on the floor that would put St Johns head close to Jesus’ chest. The same would be true of whoever was to the right of St John.

 

[po18guy]

I agree with you of course and thank you for adding more Matzoh details it enriches everyone’s understanding. I will however stand by my acknowledgement that RC doctrine regarding the ‘True Presence’ is reasonable within the practice of good exegeses.

Bonus detail, the disciple who Jesus loved (John) is described by himself as ‘leaning on Jesus’ bosom’ (John 18:23). Nefarious individuals have made suggestions this indicates St. John was shall I say not quite straight so to speak. Of course that impression is unjustified, knowledge of the Passover feast easily clarifies that St John was sitting on right hand of Jesus because of the feast practice of demonstrating willingness to quickly leave their home to flee from danger. This was demonstrated by leaning their body drastically towards the left and since everyone was seated on the floor that would put St Johns head close to Jesus’ chest. The same would be true of whoever was to the right of St John.

“Greet one another with a holy kiss” What would they make of that? We cannot impose our post-modern standards upon a foreign culture of two millennia ago! And, it is good to remember that the bible, being a tradition, complements perfectly the oral tradition and provides an absolute continuity of faith transmission from then to now.

 

[Kliska]

I agree with you of course and thank you for adding more Matzoh details it enriches everyone’s understanding. I will however stand by my acknowledgement that RC doctrine regarding the ‘True Presence’ is reasonable within the practice of good exegeses.

Bonus detail, the disciple who Jesus loved (John) is described by himself as ‘leaning on Jesus’ bosom’ (John 18:23). Nefarious individuals have made suggestions this indicates St. John was shall I say not quite straight so to speak. Of course that impression is unjustified, knowledge of the Passover feast easily clarifies that St John was sitting on right hand of Jesus because of the feast practice of demonstrating willingness to quickly leave their home to flee from danger. This was demonstrated by leaning their body drastically towards the left and since everyone was seated on the floor that would put St Johns head close to Jesus’ chest. The same would be true of whoever was to the right of St John.

Ah, but here we do run up against semantics; true presence, real presence, somatic presence, spiritual presence, etc… I can say for certain that Jesus is truly amongst His people when we partake, and at other times. Do I think scripture supports a bodily, physical presence in the bread and wine? No, but I can understand why those that hold to transubstantiation do believe that.

 

[Buddyroe]

Ah, but here we do run up against semantics; true presence, real presence, somatic presence, spiritual presence, etc… I can say for certain that Jesus is truly amongst His people when we partake, and at other times. Do I think scripture supports a bodily, physical presence in the bread and wine? No, but I can understand why those that hold to transubstantiation do believe that.

Good point on several issues. I don’t maintain that my approach to the Lords Table is completely justified by doctrine, it is one that I have acquired simply by experience.
*** please I know already that experience alone can be a dangerous justification***
Here goes: Instead of ‘Real Presence’ I think of communion as ‘virtual presence’; whenever I receive the host and the cup (I’m used to everyone receiving their own little cup) I see in my minds eye Jesus standing before the congregation handing out the elements. Jesus in this explanation becomes the head of the table instead of the elements on the table.

Anyway Kliska thank you for opening the door, I’ve been searching for a nice way to explain where my person thoughts lead me, even though I recognize validity of RC expression on this subject.

 

[Kliska]

Good point on several issues. I don’t maintain that my approach to the Lords Table is completely justified by doctrine, it is one that I have acquired simply by experience.
*** please I know already that experience alone can be a dangerous justification***
Here goes: Instead of ‘Real Presence’ I think of communion as ‘virtual presence’; whenever I receive the host and the cup (I’m used to everyone receiving their own little cup) I see in my minds eye Jesus standing before the congregation handing out the elements. Jesus in this explanation becomes the head of the table instead of the elements on the table.

Anyway Kliska thank you for opening the door, I’ve been searching for a nice way to explain where my person thoughts lead me, even though I recognize validity of RC expression on this subject.

The whole subject of the Lord’s Table is serious, important, and interesting to talk about, and to participate in! It is one of the things that both unites us, as it should be, and divides us, which is incredibly sad.

Grace and Peace to you,
K

 

[JonNC]

Good point on several issues. I don’t maintain that my approach to the Lords Table is completely justified by doctrine, it is one that I have acquired simply by experience.
*** please I know already that experience alone can be a dangerous justification***
Here goes: Instead of ‘Real Presence’ I think of communion as ‘virtual presence’; whenever I receive the host and the cup (I’m used to everyone receiving their own little cup) I see in my minds eye Jesus standing before the congregation handing out the elements. Jesus in this explanation becomes the head of the table instead of the elements on the table.

Anyway Kliska thank you for opening the door, I’ve been searching for a nice way to explain where my person thoughts lead me, even though I recognize validity of RC expression on this subject.

That’s an interesting view, Buddy, but it isn’t what Christ said. He didn’t say “I am giving you bread and wine, while I am the body and blood.” He said, "This [bread] is my body.

Alas, I think our two views are, essentially, the views that have always separated Calvinists and Lutherans.

Jon

 

[Buddyroe]

That’s an interesting view, Buddy, but it isn’t what Christ said. He didn’t say “I am giving you bread and wine, while I am the body and blood.” He said, "This [bread] is my body.

Alas, I think our two views are, essentially, the views that have always separated Calvinists and Lutherans.

Jon

Yes that is what our Lord said and I quite agree. My view is not from doctrine or direct instruction though it probably has been taught somewhere. At my church no particular doctrine is taught about this during the liturgy, our pastor simply recites the the relevant scripture. Oh dear, we still struggle with the wine verses grape juice among some members; to prevent a food fight the cup is provided both ways.

I have a sad story to share, one that drives me towards patience on the subject of Real Presence.
My brother in law and his family starting attending a Lutheran Church (I think was ELCA but now moved over to LCMS).
The congregation was filled with wonderful Christians who complimented each others gifts in the service of Christ. Their liturgy is respectful but low key. This is in a small, not very affluent town, so no costly organ or space for a choir. But they provided friendly loving Christ centered ministries for all age groups plus they engaged an aggressive foreign missionary program (they also had plenty of pot lucks . My wife and I loved to go there when we went to visit her brother.
Here comes the sad part; my brother in law was offended by the teaching of consubstantiation and left the congregation (infant baptism was also a minor factor). He ended up at a church that impressed me as emotionally and culturally driven but doctrinally rudderless.

 

[JonNC]

Yes that is what our Lord said and I quite agree. My view is not from doctrine or direct instruction though it probably has been taught somewhere. At my church no particular doctrine is taught about this during the liturgy, our pastor simply recites the the relevant scripture. Oh dear, we still struggle with the wine verses grape juice among some members; to prevent a food fight the cup is provided both ways.

I have a sad story to share, one that drives me towards patience on the subject of Real Presence.
My brother in law and his family starting attending a Lutheran Church (I think was ELCA but now moved over to LCMS).
The congregation was filled with wonderful Christians who complimented each others gifts in the service of Christ. Their liturgy is respectful but low key. This is in a small, not very affluent town, so no costly organ or space for a choir. But they provided friendly loving Christ centered ministries for all age groups plus they engaged an aggressive foreign missionary program (they also had plenty of pot lucks . My wife and I loved to go there when we went to visit her brother.
Here comes the sad part; my brother in law was offended by the teaching of consubstantiation and left the congregation (infant baptism was also a minor factor). He ended up at a church that impressed me as emotionally and culturally driven but doctrinally rudderless.

So sad to hear it, particularly if he was taught consubstantiation, which is contrary to Lutheran doctrine. Sometimes our catechesis is woeful.

Jon

 

[Buddyroe]

So sad to hear it, particularly if he was taught consubstantiation, which is contrary to Lutheran doctrine. Sometimes our catechesis is woeful.

Jon

Or was it transubstantiation? Anyway they teach the real presence comes through the elements rather than the real presence become the elements. Sorry for the mix up.

Wiki says …What Luther thus called a “sacramental union” is often erroneously called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans. … I guess that includes me.

 

[JonNC]

Or was it transubstantiation? Anyway they teach the real presence comes through the elements rather than the real presence become the elements. Sorry for the mix up.

Wiki says …What Luther thus called a “sacramental union” is often erroneously called consubstantiation by non-Lutherans. … I guess that includes me.

No problem. Lutherans don’t speak of it in metaphysical terms, trans- or con- substantiation.

Jon

 

[Porknpie]

Ah, but here we do run up against semantics; true presence, real presence, somatic presence, spiritual presence, etc… I can say for certain that Jesus is truly amongst His people when we partake, and at other times. Do I think scripture supports a bodily, physical presence in the bread and wine? No, but I can understand why those that hold to transubstantiation do believe that.

Kliska, those that do hold to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist include the earliest Catholics. St Ignatius was a disciple of St John.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer**, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ,** which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

Justin Martyr
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished,** is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."** Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).

Clement of Alexandria a few years later
“For the blood of the grape–that is, the Word–desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. **And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both–of the water and of the Word–is called Eucharist, **renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202).

PnP

 

[Kliska]

Yeah, I’ve read and studied the ECF’s on this issue and certainly don’t see what the RCC tells me I should see there. In short, I don’t see a monolithic teaching of the literal idea of transubstantiation in all the ECF’s and/or early Christian writers. Instead, I see philsophical language that is sometimes meant to convey the literal, and sometime mean to convey the symbolic, IMO. But, I don’t want to jump into that here, though I understand where you and others are coming from.

 

[benjohnson]

Yeah, I’ve read and studied the ECF’s on this issue and certainly don’t see what the RCC tells me I should see there. In short, I don’t see a monolithic teaching of the literal idea of transubstantiation in all the ECF’s and/or early Christian writers.

In fairness to our Catholic friends, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was in response to the problem that there were many Christians that denied the revelation that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. In that light, I don’t get too angry with Catholic insistence of giving the situation a name and a plausible analyses.

 

[GKC]

In fairness to our Catholic friends, the doctrine of Transubstantiation was in response to the problem that there were many Christians that denied the revelation that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ. In that light, I don’t get too angry with Catholic insistence of giving the situation a name and a plausible analyses.

I don’t either.

GKC