The Lutheran Doctrine of Holy Communion

[GKC]

I’m curious what you mean when you say there is no ministerial priesthood among Lutheran and Anglican traditions within the Church. I am not aware of a time when there was not, in either tradition.

When the term administered is used, the intention is to preside at, or celebrate the sacrament. Administer here doesn’t mean distribute. Within both Anglican and Lutheran traditions within the Church, laity assist the pastor/priest in the distribution, but it is the ordained pastor/ priest that celebrates and presides at the altar, speaks the verba, etc.

Selected Anglicans permit non-ordained laity to distribute the consecrated elements. Other Anglicans do not. It’s that “one of these things is not like the others”: idea. Except that Anglicans are more “all of these things are not like the others.”

As to confecting the sacrament of the altar, yes, it’s the priest, All the way down. Always has been.

Up to now. Tomorrow, who knows.

 

[GKC]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut here steido01.

But I am not asking about who can “administer” the “Sacrament” (Catholic laity frequently “administer” the Sacrament as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist).

I am more concerned with WHO can confect it.

Catholics assert ONLY ministerial priests (priests and bishops) can transform bread and wine both into the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We are taught specifically that deacons and lay people (among the priesthood of all Baptized believers) do not have the ability to do this (irrespective of if they wanted to or not).

Since there is no ordained ministerial priests, native to various Lutheran ecclesial communities (or for that matter, in the Anglican communities for quite some time), I was wondering what YOU taught about WHO can confect the “Sacrament” in such communities?

Thanks in advance.

Your statement as to ministerial priests in the Anglican world is in keeping with what any RC should affirm, as to the validity of Anglican orders,per Apostolicae curae. It is not what an Anglican might affirm, as to the matter (or the form, or the intent}. While it is, as said, what a RC should hold, using it in this manner, in your question, reduces to “As you know, the RCC has stated that Anglican orders are null and void (with additional descriptors). That being the case, in that you have no ministerial priests, who do you Anglicans say confects your Eucharist, in their absolute and utter absence”?.

Guess.

 

[steido01]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut here steido01.

But I am not asking about who can “administer” the “Sacrament” (Catholic laity frequently “administer” the Sacrament as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist).

I am more concerned with WHO can confect it.

As Jon noted, Lutherans have always meant “administer” to mean “preside over,” and “celebrate.” This is an issue of language. When lay people (typically only elders in Lutheranism) assist the Pastor in the physical serving of the Bread and Wine, they are not actually adminstering the Sacrament, but merely acting as the pastor’s “hands,” so to speak. It is the pastor, alone, who is called (by the church, locally, on behalf of the church, generally) and ordained (through the Rite of Ordination and the Laying on of Hands) to administer the Sacrament.

Catholics assert ONLY ministerial priests (priests and bishops) can transform bread and wine both into the body, blood, soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

We are taught specifically that deacons and lay people (among the priesthood of all Baptized believers) do not have the ability to do this (irrespective of if they wanted to or not).

Lutherans believe that it is God’s Word (“This is My Body…”), alone, that ‘changes’ mere bread and wine into Christ’s true Body and Blood; the priest adds nothing of his own and has no special abilities, as if he were some sorcerer who could conjure God. Lutherans also do not limit God. If God wanted to make sons of Abraham from the pebbles on the ground, he could. Lutherans do teach, however, that deacons and laypeople have not been entrusted with the authority to preside over Holy Communion, and therefore cannot. I know of one such case, and if I were ever to witness it, I would do what one faithful individual did then – walk out of that church and not return until the practice was corrected.

Since there is no ordained ministerial priests, native to various Lutheran ecclesial communities (or for that matter, in the Anglican communities for quite some time), I was wondering what YOU taught about WHO can confect the “Sacrament” in such communities?

Thanks in advance.

Lutherans do not measure ‘validity’ in the same way Roman Catholics do. Lutherans believe we do have rightly called and ordained ministers.

If you are asking me to speculate on the validity of other communions, that’s again something that Lutherans don’t really bother trying to determine. We know where Word and Sacrament can be found, and we’ll tell you that.

 

[JonNC]

Selected Anglicans permit non-ordained laity to distribute the consecrated elements. Other Anglicans do not. It’s that “one of these things is not like the others”: idea. Except that Anglicans are more “all of these things are not like the others.”

As to confecting the sacrament of the altar, yes, it’s the priest, All the way down. Always has been.

Up to now. Tomorrow, who knows.

In my parish, lay assistants are used. It was the same in most Lutheran parishes I was a member of, other the one of my childhood, and those that had multiple pastors.

If Cathoholic’a point revolved around the Catholic view of validity, then yes, he is reflecting Catholic teaching.

 

[AugustTherese]

If Lutherans are asked to give a term to their belief in the Real Presence, the term they use is ‘Sacramental Union.’ It explains that Christ is truly present without attempting to give an Aristotelian explanation for “how” this occurs, which both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation may do, whether intended to or not.

‘Sacramental Union’, as the BOC states, “*n pane, sub pane, cum pane”, is just as philosophical as the conciliar promulgation of Transubstantiation. Just because the term ‘Sacramental Union’ attempts to work under the sole guise of Sacred Scripture, it does not make it less philosophical in its defining elements.

If anything, the term ‘Trinity’ is more “Aristotelian” than both ‘Sacramental Union’ and ‘Transubstantiation’ put together (in their definitions), yet I would presuppose that you have no doctrinal beef with that term (Trinity). *

 

[steido01]

‘Sacramental Union’, as the BOC states, "n pane, sub pane, cum pane", is just as philosophical as the conciliar promulgation of Transubstantiation. Just because the term ‘Sacramental Union’ attempts to work under the sole guise of Sacred Scripture, it does not make it less philosophical in its defining elements.

We must look at the context for which Lutherans used “in, with, and under.” It was not to describe the relation of the Bread to the Body or the Wine to the Blood, of themselves, but rather to reinforce the Real Presence in opposition to the heterodox teachings of Calvin that had begun to infiltrate the Lutheran Church and essentially denied the Real Presence. Lutherans read Christ’s words at face value: “This is My Body…” without adding philosophical “how’s” to it. “In, with, and under” simply state to the Calvinist that Christ is truly present, and not present far away.
AugustTherese;14575157:

If anything, the term ‘Trinity’ is more “Aristotelian” than both ‘Sacramental Union’ and ‘Transubstantiation’ put together (in their definitions), yet I would presuppose that you have no doctrinal beef with that term (Trinity).

Apples, doorknobs.

 

[Cathoholic]

steido01.

You discussed . . . “in, with, and under.”

Do you give WORSHIP to the Eucharist?

This isn’t attempting to be a gotcha question, but it will give me insight as to how YOU are thinking about the Eucharist.

In your community, when the service is over . . . . does your minister put the hosts back in the drawer or does he place it in a Tabernacle kept apart from the bread that has not been involved in your liturgical service?

 

[JonNC]

steido01.

You discussed . . . “in, with, and under.”

Do you give WORSHIP to the Eucharist?

This isn’t attempting to be a gotcha question, but it will give me insight as to how YOU are thinking about the Eucharist.

In your community, when the service is over . . . . does your minister put the hosts back in the drawer or does he place it in a Tabernacle kept apart from the bread that has not been involved in your liturgical service?

Don can speak for himself. In my life as a Lutheran:

I always receive on my knees (when they will allow it ), and I do so because before me is Christ Himself, His flesh and blood, on the altar. Yes. Worship.

My experience as a Lutheran has always been that orthodox practice is to consume all that is consecrated, other than what is reserved for sick and shut in. Otherwise, it is kept separately from the unconsecrated.

 

[steido01]

Do you give WORSHIP to the Eucharist?

Why wouldn’t I worship Christ? I bow when I approach the altar. I kneel when I receive His Body and Blood. I bow again when I return to the pew. I pray thankfully when I sit, using the kneelers if the church has them: “Almighty and everlasting God, I thank and praise you for feeding me with the life-giving body and blood of your beloved son Jesus Christ. Send your Holy Spirit that, having with my mouth received the holy Sacrament, I may by faith obtain and eternally enjoy your divine grace, the forgiveness of sins, unity with Christ, and everlasting life; through Jesus Christ my Lord. Amen.”. This is the Lutheran practice. This is the practice of the church catholic.

In your community, when the service is over . . . . does your minister put the hosts back in the drawer or does he place it in a Tabernacle kept apart from the bread that has not been involved in your liturgical service?

Copying and pasting from previous posts of mine:

At churches where I’ve worshiped, any remaining Blood in the chalice is either consumed by the pastor or properly disposed, and anything remaining of His Body is either stored separately from the unconsecrated hosts or properly disposed. I know when my father’s congregation (he’s an LCMS pastor) was building a new church a few years ago, members made a particular point to add a piscina, which had been lacking from the original church (a terrible oversight of that hideous 1980’s bunker-church construction!).

On proper disposal of the elements:
This is typically done via the traditional usage of a piscina and sacrarium. From The Altar Guild Manual: Lutheran Service Book Edition (wording unchanged, emphasis mine):

If any of the Lord’s body and blood remains, they can be disposed of in a number of ways. The best way is to consume the remaining elements, since the Lord said, “Take and eat … Take and drink,” and did not provide for anything that was left over. There is historic precedent for reserving the remaining elements against the next communion. The hosts can be stored in a pyx or ciborium (apart from unconsecrated hosts), the blood of the Lord in a suitable cruet or flagon (apart from unconsecrated wine). What remains in the chalice, however, should either be consumed or poured into the piscine or onto the ground, since there may be crumbs or other foreign matter in it. The reserved elements may then be kept in the sacristy or placed on the altar or credence and covered with a white veil. It is un-Lutheran and irreverent to place unused elements in the trash or to pour the remainder of what is in the chalice or flagon into the common drain.

And from the “Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper,” as prepared by the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations:

B.2.c. Post Communion Reverence
The consecrated elements which remain after all have communed should be treated with reverence. This reverence has been expressed by Lutherans in various ways. Some have followed the ancient practice of burning the bread and pouring the wine upon the earth. Others have established a basin and drain-piscina-specifically for disposal for the wine. The elders or altar guild may also return the consecrated bread and wine to specific containers a pyx or ciborium, separate from unconsecrated elements] for future sacramental use, or the elders and pastor can consume the remaining elements. All of these practices should be understood properly.

As stated above, Lutherans typically do not reserve the Sacrament, though some do. Lutherans prefer to consume the entirety of the Sacrament because they take very seriously Christ’s command to “Take, eat. Take, drink.” Christ didn’t say anything about “Take, eat some now, and save some for later,” so in typical Lutheran fashion, they don’t put a comma where they understand God to have put a period. Instead, they simply avoid having any leftover altogether. Churches I’ve worshiped at have a simple practice - the elders count how many members are present (either by headcount or card stating intent-to-receive) so no more bread or wine than necessary is consecrated.

If a member is in the hospital or otherwise unable to make it to Divine Service, the pastor typically visits and consecrates the elements on-site, both so as not to subject Christ’s Body and Blood to being rather unceremoniously carted around all day as they visit shut-ins (and potentially spilled or dropped! ), and so that the consecration takes place in the presence of the communicant. This is thought to be more in line with Christ’s command, not to mention more pastoral (who doesn’t like a one-on-one visit from their pastor?).

In short, the traditional Lutheran practice of not reserving the Sacrament is done totally out of high reverence for His Body and Blood.

 

[AugustTherese]

We must look at the context for which Lutherans used “in, with, and under.” It was not to describe the relation of the Bread to the Body or the Wine to the Blood, of themselves, but rather to reinforce the Real Presence in opposition to the heterodox teachings of Calvin that had begun to infiltrate the Lutheran Church and essentially denied the Real Presence. Lutherans read Christ’s words at face value: “This is My Body…” without adding philosophical “how’s” to it. “In, with, and under” simply state to the Calvinist that Christ is truly present, and not present far away.

Apples, doorknobs.

“It was not to describe the relation of the Bread to the Body or the Wine to the Blood”

This is My body, that just as in Christ two distinct, unchanged natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth in the appointed administration of the Sacrament. Although this union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, as that of the two natures in Christ - Formula of Concord, VII. The Holy Supper, p. 35

First of all, this explicitly “describes the relations of the Bread to the Body” and “the Wine to the Blood”. Second, this explanation attempts to embed the liturgical elements of consecration with the theological reality of Our Lord’s hypostatic union; a theological term with a very philosophical definition - “Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, “Mund.”, IV, 21).”

What’s interesting to me is how Confessional Lutherans seemingly abhor the “Aristotelian” components of the conciliar definition of Transubstantiation, when their Confessions attempt to philosophically define how a substance can be two substances (bread-body) concurrently, under the pretext of preserving the orthodox teaching of the Real Presence. The fact is, your confessions, unwittingly agree with Transubstantiation inasmuch as the portion of your host, as your confessions propose, is the actual Body of Christ - as that portion was substantially bread alone before consecration - and thus coax and masquerade the inconsistency of inadvertently suggesting Our Lord was a loaf a bread in nature, in the sacramental sense.

I am not setting up a diatribe here; I was just shocked at how you implied that Transubstantiation is a mere philosophical construct that merely attempts to explain how the bread and wine change their substances into the Body and Blood.

 

[AugustTherese]

Why wouldn’t I worship Christ? I bow when I approach the altar. I kneel when I receive His Body and Blood. I bow again when I return to the pew. I pray thankfully when I sit, using the kneelers if the church has them: “Almighty and everlasting God, I thank and praise you for feeding me with the life-giving body and blood of your beloved son Jesus Christ. Send your Holy Spirit that, having with my mouth received the holy Sacrament, I may by faith obtain and eternally enjoy your divine grace, the forgiveness of sins, unity with Christ, and everlasting life; through Jesus Christ my Lord. Amen.”. This is the Lutheran practice. This is the practice of the church catholic.

Copying and pasting from previous posts of mine:

At churches where I’ve worshiped, any remaining Blood in the chalice is either consumed by the pastor or properly disposed, and anything remaining of His Body is either stored separately from the unconsecrated hosts or properly disposed. I know when my father’s congregation (he’s an LCMS pastor) was building a new church a few years ago, members made a particular point to add a piscina, which had been lacking from the original church (a terrible oversight of that hideous 1980’s bunker-church construction!).

On proper disposal of the elements:
This is typically done via the traditional usage of a piscina and sacrarium. From The Altar Guild Manual: Lutheran Service Book Edition (wording unchanged, emphasis mine):

And from the “Theology and Practice of the Lord’s Supper,” as prepared by the LCMS Commission on Theology and Church Relations:

As stated above, Lutherans typically do not reserve the Sacrament, though some do. Lutherans prefer to consume the entirety of the Sacrament because they take very seriously Christ’s command to “Take, eat. Take, drink.” Christ didn’t say anything about “Take, eat some now, and save some for later,” so in typical Lutheran fashion, they don’t put a comma where they understand God to have put a period. Instead, they simply avoid having any leftover altogether. Churches I’ve worshiped at have a simple practice - the elders count how many members are present (either by headcount or card stating intent-to-receive) so no more bread or wine than necessary is consecrated.

If a member is in the hospital or otherwise unable to make it to Divine Service, the pastor typically visits and consecrates the elements on-site, both so as not to subject Christ’s Body and Blood to being rather unceremoniously carted around all day as they visit shut-ins (and potentially spilled or dropped! ), and so that the consecration takes place in the presence of the communicant. This is thought to be more in line with Christ’s command, not to mention more pastoral (who doesn’t like a one-on-one visit from their pastor?).

In short, the traditional Lutheran practice of not reserving the Sacrament is done totally out of high reverence for His Body and Blood.

Hey, Don; please excuse me for butting in. I just had a few questions if you do not mind.

“I kneel when I receive His Body and Blood”

I appreciate your reverence! What confuses me, however, is what you say and what really is, per your confessions. For example, and I’m not trying to be facetious, but are you not receiving His Body-bread and Blood-wine? Are you only revering the proportional substance of that which is Christ, even though it’s Christ in, with, and under the bread?

“At churches where I’ve worshiped, any remaining Blood in the chalice is either consumed by the pastor or properly disposed, and anything remaining of His Body is either stored separately from the unconsecrated hosts or properly disposed.”

What do you mean by “properly disposed”? Also, why call it “Blood” when it is in reality, per your confessions, Blood-wine considering both substances simultaneously exist? Also, consuming the remaining Blood in the chalice is common practice in our liturgical rites, but what would your pastor do with remaining hosts? Does he consume them all?

"Lutherans prefer to consume the entirety of the Sacrament because they take very seriously Christ’s command to “Take, eat. Take, drink.” Christ didn’t say anything about “Take, eat some now, and save some for later’…”

“The custom of reserving the holy Eucharist in the sacrarium is so ancient, that even the age of the Council of Nicaea recognised that usage. Moreover, as to carrying the sacred Eucharist itself to the sick, and carefully reserving it for this purpose in churches, besides that it is exceedingly conformable to equity and reason, it is also found enjoined in numerous councils, and is a very ancient observance of the Catholic Church. Wherefore, this holy Synod ordains, that this salutary and necessary custom is to be by all means retained.” - Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Chapter VI.

Ergo,

“Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if any one should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him.” First Council of Nicaea, Canon 13 (325AD)

 

[steido01]

I appreciate your reverence! What confuses me, however, is what you say and what really is, per your confessions. For example, and I’m not trying to be facetious, but are you not receiving His Body-bread and Blood-wine? Are you only revering the proportional substance of that which is Christ, even though it’s Christ in, with, and under the bread?

No. There is no strange co-mingling nor third substance made. That would be Consubstantiation, which Lutherans do not profess. See Jon’s quotations earlier.

What do you mean by “properly disposed”?

Read the rest of my post. I explained that consuming the entirety of the Sacrament is preferred, though proper disposal down a piscina or some other reverent means is acceptable within the catholic tradition.

Also, why call it “Blood” when it is in reality, per your confessions, Blood-wine considering both substances simultaneously exist?

Again, this is not what Lutherans profess. Re-read Jon’s post and my own.

Also, consuming the remaining Blood in the chalice is common practice in our liturgical rites, but what would your pastor do with remaining hosts? Does he consume them all?

Yes; if need be, with help from the elders assisting him. If not consumed, then they may be stored separately in a tabernacle, pix, ciborium, etc. as I explained. Did you read my post?

“The custom of reserving the holy Eucharist in the sacrarium is so ancient, that even the age of the Council of Nicaea recognised that usage. Moreover, as to carrying the sacred Eucharist itself to the sick, and carefully reserving it for this purpose in churches, besides that it is exceedingly conformable to equity and reason, it is also found enjoined in numerous councils, and is a very ancient observance of the Catholic Church. Wherefore, this holy Synod ordains, that this salutary and necessary custom is to be by all means retained.” - Council of Trent, Thirteenth Session, Chapter VI.

Ergo,

“Concerning the departing, the ancient canonical law is still to be maintained, to wit, that, if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum. But, if any one should be restored to health again who has received the communion when his life was despaired of, let him remain among those who communicate in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person whatsoever asking to receive the Eucharist, let the Bishop, after examination made, give it him.” First Council of Nicaea, Canon 13 (325AD)

Nicea seems to support the Lutheran practice over the novel Tridentine interpretation. In Lutheran practice, it remains the Bishop (pastor) who actually communes the infirm, just like Nicea Canon 13 directs. This is preferable to having Christ’s Body and Blood unceremoniously carted off by Uncle Jim to Grandma Jean in the nursing home because Father Busy was unable to make a house call. The Lutheran Reformers knew their church fathers and their councils.

 

[AugustTherese]

No. There is no strange co-mingling nor third substance made. That would be Consubstantiation, which Lutherans do not profess. See Jon’s quotations earlier.

Read the rest of my post. I explained that consuming the entirety of the Sacrament is preferred, though proper disposal down a piscina or some other reverent means is acceptable within the catholic tradition.

Again, this is not what Lutherans profess. Re-read Jon’s post and my own.

Yes; if need be, with help from the elders assisting him. If not consumed, then they may be stored separately in a tabernacle, pix, ciborium, etc. as I explained. Did you read my post?

Nicea seems to support the Lutheran practice over the novel Tridentine interpretation. In Lutheran practice, it remains the Bishop (pastor) who actually communes the infirm, just like Nicea Canon 13 directs. This is preferable to having Christ’s Body and Blood unceremoniously carted off by Uncle Jim to Grandma Jean in the nursing home because Father Busy was unable to make a house call. The Lutheran Reformers knew their church fathers and their councils.

Thank you for the reply, Don!

"Lutherans prefer to consume the entirety of the Sacrament because they take very seriously Christ’s command to “Take, eat. Take, drink.” Christ didn’t say anything about “Take, eat some now, and save some for later,” so in typical Lutheran fashion, they don’t put a comma where they understand God to have put a period…

…If not consumed, then they may be stored separately in a tabernacle, pix, ciborium, etc. as I explained. Did you read my post?"

I did read your post. What I am concerned about is how you subtly attempted to undermine the reservation of the Host under the pretense of Scripture, in your initial comment, and then state “they may be stored separately in a tabernacle…”

“There is no strange co-mingling”

Does not the Body and Blood substantially exist concurrently in, with, and under the substances of bread and wine, respecctively? Semantics aside, why do you profess to solely call it Blood when It exists substantially in, with, and under the wine substance?

“Nicea seems to support the Lutheran practice over the novel Tridentine interpretation. In Lutheran practice, it remains the Bishop (pastor) who actually communes the infirm, just like Nicea Canon 13 directs. This is preferable to having Christ’s Body and Blood unceremoniously carted off by Uncle Jim to Grandma Jean in the nursing home because Father Busy was unable to make a house call. The Lutheran Reformers knew their church fathers and their councils”

I would suggest “seems” is the key word in your response. What’s ironic, is that the Bishops in the “novel Tridentine interpretation” can trace their apostolic pedigree and authority back to the First Council of Nicaea, whereas the novel 16th century “Lutheran practice” and its pastors attempt to trace their lineage back to early Ecumenical Catholic Councils under the pretext of seemingly adhering to exegetical Scriptural understanding, but cannot. And yes, even though Bishops are “(pastor)”, just the fact that you need to recognize the distinguishing of vocational identities, substantiates my point.

Also, regarding your retort, “to having Christ’s Body and Blood unceremoniously carted off by Uncle Jim to Grandma Jean in the nursing home because Father Busy was unable to make a house call”; see canons below from the First Council of Nicaea:

"If any have been promoted to ordination through the ignorance of their promoters or even with their connivance, this fact does not prejudice the church’s canon; for once discovered they are to be deposed…

…On account of the great disturbance and the factions which are caused, it is decreed that the custom, if it is found to exist in some parts contrary to the canon, shall be totally suppressed, so that neither bishops nor presbyters nor deacons shall transfer from city to city. If after this decision of this holy and great synod anyone shall attempt such a thing, or shall lend himself to such a proceeding, the arrangement shall be totally annulled, and he shall be restored to the church of which he was ordained bishop or presbyter or deacon…

…Any presbyters or deacons or in general anyone enrolled in any rank of the clergy who depart from their church recklessly and without the fear of God before their eyes or in ignorance of the church’s canon, ought not by any means to be received in another church, but all pressure must be applied to them to induce them to return to their own dioceses, or if they remain it is right that they should be excommunicated. But if anyone dares to steal away one who belongs to another and to ordain him in his church without the consent of the other’s own bishop among whose clergy he was enrolled before he departed, the ordination is to be null…"

Again, thanks for your reply, Don!

 

[steido01]

I did read your post. What I am concerned about is how you subtly attempted to undermine the reservation of the Host under the pretense of Scripture, in your initial comment, and then state “they may be stored separately in a tabernacle…”

How can I “undermine” that which Christ has neither commanded nor endorsed? Show me, in Scripture, where Christ commands that we are to reserve rather than “Take, and eat.” Then tell me, which practice is operating under pretense, and which under fidelity to fact.

Does not the Body and Blood substantially exist concurrently in, with, and under the substances of bread and wine, respectively?

The elements and Christ’s Body and Blood are present in a mysterious, incomprehensible and indescribable way. I cannot say more than that. It is a miracle. It is a divine mystery.

Semantics aside, why do you profess to solely call it Blood when It exists substantially in, with, and under the wine substance?

The Body and Blood may also be called Bread and Wine, as St. Paul does in Scripture.

I would suggest “seems” is the key word in your response. What’s ironic, is that the Bishops in the “novel Tridentine interpretation” can trace their apostolic pedigree and authority back to the First Council of Nicaea, whereas the novel 16th century “Lutheran practice” and its pastors attempt to trace their lineage back to early Ecumenical Catholic Councils under the pretext of seemingly adhering to exegetical Scriptural understanding, but cannot.

So instead of engaging the actual text of the Council, you respond with Roman Triumphalism about the validity of orders. Well, that’s where this thread dies. Lutheran consciences have been sufficiently persuaded to ignore the cruelty of unjust bishops since Article XIV was penned in the Augsburg Apology. The Law was made for Man, not Man for the Law.

Unless you have some questions specific to Lutheran doctrine and practice regarding Holy Communion, I think this conversation has gone as far as it charitably can.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[AugustTherese]

How can I “undermine” that which Christ has neither commanded nor endorsed? Show me, in Scripture, where Christ commands that we are to reserve rather than “Take, and eat.” Then tell me, which practice is operating under pretense, and which under fidelity to fact.

The elements and Christ’s Body and Blood are present in a mysterious, incomprehensible and indescribable way. I cannot say more than that. It is a miracle. It is a divine mystery.

The Body and Blood may also be called Bread and Wine, as St. Paul does in Scripture.

So instead of engaging the actual text of the Council, you respond with Roman Triumphalism about the validity of orders. Well, that’s where this thread dies. Lutheran consciences have been sufficiently persuaded to ignore the cruelty of unjust bishops since Article XIV was penned in the Augsburg Apology. The Law was made for Man, not Man for the Law.

Unless you have some questions specific to Lutheran doctrine and practice regarding Holy Communion, I think this conversation has gone as far as it charitably can.

Christ’s peace be with you.

“How can I “undermine” that which Christ has neither commanded nor endorsed?”

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. - John 20:30 NKJV

“Show me, in Scripture”

Not to reverse the burden of proof, but where in Scripture does it command us to solely go to Scripture regarding “Christ’s commands”?

“The elements and Christ’s Body and Blood are present”

Elements, or substances? I just wanted to clarify. For instance, a chair has elements of wood, varnish, color, etc., but the substance is the chair.

“The Body and Blood may also be called Bread and Wine, as St. Paul does in Scripture.”

Of course! Except, Saint Paul refers the Blood to the Chalice (cup) in a colloquial way, not in reality, likewise the Body to the bread. For example, Our Lord refers to Himself as the Bread of Heaven, but we both know that He is not the Eternal Word made bread. Or, allegorically referencing Our Lord as the Lamb of God, but, He is not in reality an actual lamb, yes?

“Unless you have some questions specific to Lutheran doctrine and practice regarding Holy Communion”

Are not my questions specific to Lutheran doctrine and practice regarding Holy Communion?

Christ’s peace be with you as well!

 

[JonNC]

=AugustTherese;14578670]“How can I “undermine” that which Christ has neither commanded nor endorsed?”

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book. - John 20:30 NKJV

And how does one know what they were?

“Show me, in Scripture”

Not to reverse the burden of proof, but where in Scripture does it command us to solely go to Scripture regarding “Christ’s commands”?

Where else can we find Christ’s commands? Perhaps the early councils, the truly ecumenical councils.

“The elements and Christ’s Body and Blood are present”

Elements, or substances? I just wanted to clarify. For instance, a chair has elements of wood, varnish, color, etc., but the substance is the chair.

Christ doesn’t say. He simply says, “This is my Body”, etc.

“The Body and Blood may also be called Bread and Wine, as St. Paul does in Scripture.”

Of course! Except, Saint Paul refers the Blood to the Chalice (cup) in a colloquial way, not in reality, likewise the Body to the bread. For example, Our Lord refers to Himself as the Bread of Heaven, but we both know that He is not the Eternal Word made bread. Or, allegorically referencing Our Lord as the Lamb of God, but, He is not in reality an actual lamb, yes?

How do you know it is in a colloquial way? Clearly, I agree with that analysis, but if St. Paul can refer to it colloquially, why can’t others?

“Unless you have some questions specific to Lutheran doctrine and practice regarding Holy Communion”

Are not my questions specific to Lutheran doctrine and practice regarding Holy Communion?

It appeared you drifted off into repetitive questions about things already answered, in order to possibly receive an answer that maybe fit a different outlook. Just sayin.

Jon

Christ’s peace be with you as well!

 

[AugustTherese]

And how does one know what they were?

Where else can we find Christ’s commands? Perhaps the early councils, the truly ecumenical councils.

Christ doesn’t say. He simply says, “This is my Body”, etc.

How do you know it is in a colloquial way? Clearly, I agree with that analysis, but if St. Paul can refer to it colloquially, why can’t others?

It appeared you drifted off into repetitive questions about things already answered, in order to possibly receive an answer that maybe fit a different outlook. Just sayin.

Jon

Christ’s peace be with you as well!

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come." John 16:12 NKJV

“He who hears you hears Me…” Luke 10:16 NKJV

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15

“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the TRADITION which he received from us.” 2 Thessalonians 3:6 NKJV

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the TRADITIONS just as I delivered them to you.” 1 Corinthians 11:2 NKJV

CAPS only for emphasis.

“Perhaps the early councils, the truly ecumenical councils.”

By what authority do you suggest that some “ecumenical councils” are true and others are not? Is it not perhaps somewhat self-indicative (I am NOT implying you) that those the Ecumenical Councils declare anathema are the very ones that question the Councils’ authenticity?

“How do you know it is in a colloquial way?”

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” 1 Corinthians 10:16,17 NKJV

Saint Paul says, “For WE, though many, are one BREAD”. Are you a loaf of Wonder Bread? Just as Christ refers to himself as the Bread from Heaven, He explicitly states, “and the bread that I shall give is My flesh”; so, when Saint Paul allegorically refers to us human beings as “one bread”, he is not theologically implying that we exist in, with, and under bread as the Lutheran Confessions profess to believe regarding Holy Communion, but rather he is using a Jewish idiom just as Christ did that goes back to the mana that miraculously fell from Heaven and united the tribes of Israel, hence “one bread” - “Now all the people gathered together as one man” (Nehemiah 8:1 NKJV). (Caps only for emphasis)

May the peace of Christ be with you, too!

 

[JonNC]

=AugustTherese;14579983]

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come." John 16:12 NKJV

“He who hears you hears Me…” Luke 10:16 NKJV

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” 2 Thessalonians 2:15

“But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the TRADITION which he received from us.” 2 Thessalonians 3:6 NKJV

“Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the TRADITIONS just as I delivered them to you.” 1 Corinthians 11:2 NKJV

CAPS only for emphasis.

Amen. Not sure of your reason for posting these.

“Perhaps the early councils, the truly ecumenical councils.”

By what authority do you suggest that some “ecumenical councils” are true and others are not? Is it not perhaps somewhat self-indicative (I am NOT implying you) that those the Ecumenical Councils declare anathema are the very ones that question the Councils’ authenticity?

I don’t have any authority. Why would you think I do? I do reflect a view point that is rather consistent with many Anglicans, and well as the Lutheran tradition I was raised in, and similar to the Eastern Orthodox.

“How do you know it is in a colloquial way?”

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” 1 Corinthians 10:16,17 NKJV

Saint Paul says, “For WE, though many, are one BREAD”. Are you a loaf of Wonder Bread? Just as Christ refers to himself as the Bread from Heaven, He explicitly states, “and the bread that I shall give is My flesh”; so, when Saint Paul allegorically refers to us human beings as “one bread”, he is not theologically implying that we exist in, with, and under bread as the Lutheran Confessions profess to believe regarding Holy Communion, but rather he is using a Jewish idiom just as Christ did that goes back to the mana that miraculously fell from Heaven and united the tribes of Israel, hence “one bread” - “Now all the people gathered together as one man” (Nehemiah 8:1 NKJV). (Caps only for emphasis)

Again, I’m not arguing against the premise, only the apparent attempt to prohibit Don in particular and Lutherans in general from speaking in a similar manner.

Again, Herman Sasse: ** It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say. **

And this is what I mean in the post you replied to. If you read what Lutherans say, they in no way imply, state, or believe that the body and blood of Christ exist in the way you imply.

Jon

 

[AugustTherese]

Amen. Not sure of your reason for posting these.

Because you stated, “And how does one know what they were”, referring to my posting John 20:30.

I don’t have any authority. Why would you think I do? I do reflect a view point that is rather consistent with many Anglicans, and well as the Lutheran tradition I was raised in, and similar to the Eastern Orthodox.

Then you should not attempt to imply that only the “early ecumenical councils” are true. Our Lord built an indestructible and inerrant Church; to imply that only the “early ecumenical councils” were inerrant, would suggest that you carry some authority over the ones that did ‘err’ according to your implications.

Again, I’m not arguing against the premise, only the apparent attempt to prohibit Don in particular and Lutherans in general from speaking in a similar manner.

Again, Herman Sasse: ** It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say. **

And this is what I mean in the post you replied to. If you read what Lutherans say, they in no way imply, state, or believe that the body and blood of Christ exist in the way you imply.

Jon

“Amen. Not sure of your reason for posting these.”

Because you stated, “And how does one know what they were”, referring to my posting John 20:30.

“I don’t have any authority. Why would you think I do? I do reflect a view point that is rather consistent with many Anglicans, and well as the Lutheran tradition I was raised in, and similar to the Eastern Orthodox.”

Then you should not attempt to imply that only the “early ecumenical councils” are true. Our Lord built an indestructible and inerrant Church; to imply that only the “early ecumenical councils” were inerrant, would suggest that you carry some authority over the ones that did ‘err’ according to your implications.

“the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institutions say”

The Words of Institution do not say or even allude to that. To pit divine mysteries against reason (it seems to me), i.e. declaring that something be something else simultaneously, seems to be an endeavor to masquerade the blatant theological error. The same goes with the doctrine of “simul justus et peccator”; how could one attempt to bury the error under the guise of sole faith and trust without reason? Just say it’s both! For instance, when I ask why Confessional Lutherans call it “Body” when in reality they profess to believe that it is both body and bread, why could I not call it ‘bread’ as Saint Paul does, at the time of consecration? It’s as if they want to have their cake and eat it to, so to speak.

“And this is what I mean in the post you replied to. If you read what Lutherans say, they in no way imply, state, or believe that the body and blood of Christ exist in the way you imply.”

I am not implying anything. When I quote verbatim from the BOC, “existing in, with, and under the bread”, what exactly would my questions “imply” otherwise?

 

[JonNC]

=AugustTherese;14580308]“Amen. Not sure of your reason for posting these.”

Because you stated, “And how does one know what they were”, referring to my posting John 20:30.

Okay. I’m agreeing with the scriptural references.

“I don’t have any authority. Why would you think I do? I do reflect a view point that is rather consistent with many Anglicans, and well as the Lutheran tradition I was raised in, and similar to the Eastern Orthodox.”

Then you should not attempt to imply that only the “early ecumenical councils” are true. Our Lord built an indestructible and inerrant Church; to imply that only the “early ecumenical councils” were inerrant, would suggest that you carry some authority over the ones that did ‘err’ according to your implications.

He absolutely built an inerrant and indestructible Church. That doesn’t mean humans that populate it don’t make mistakes. Otherwise, the Church would not be so terribly divided.
The fact that more patriarchs claim seven than claim others is at least an indication that they are the only seven, since that is how a council is ecumenical.

“the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institutions say”

The Words of Institution do not say or even allude to that. To pit divine mysteries against reason (it seems to me), i.e. declaring that something be something else simultaneously, seems to be an endeavor to masquerade the blatant theological error. The same goes with the doctrine of “simul justus et peccator”; how could one attempt to bury the error under the guise of sole faith and trust without reason? Just say it’s both! .

And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. **
Christ here is not being symbolic. He is being literal. He took bread**.
Of course, His words have the power to make that bread His body, which it does.

For instance, when I ask why Confessional Lutherans call it “Body” when in reality they profess to believe that it is both body and bread,

You see, this is what Don was talking about. You now are trying to tell him what he believes. And, it is not true. That’s why he is willing to break off the discussion with you.
Instead of accusing him of believing something he does not, in a way similar to those who accuse you of worshiping the Blessed Virgin, try actually listening to what he tells you he believes. You don’t have to agree with what he says, but don’t misrepresent what he tells you. You don’t have the authority to interpret for Lutherans what their confession says and means, and what they believe.

why could I not call it ‘bread’ as Saint Paul does, at the time of consecration? It’s as if they want to have their cake and eat it to, so to speak

“And this is what I mean in the post you replied to. If you read what Lutherans say, they in no way imply, state, or believe that the body and blood of Christ exist in the way you imply.”

I am not implying anything. When I quote verbatim from the BOC, “existing in, with, and under the bread”, what exactly would my questions “imply” otherwise?

Of course you are. You did here again with me. You are trying to accuse Lutherans of believing in consubstantiation when they don’t.

Again, from a Lutheran theologian:
Andrew Osiander: “Our theologians for years long have strenuously denied and powerfully confuted the doctrine of a local inclusion, or physical connection of the body and bread, or consubstantiation. We believe in no impanation, subpanation, companation, or consubstantiation of the body of Christ; no physical or local inclusion or conjoining of bread and body, as our adversaries, in manifest calumnies, allege against us."

Emphasis mine.

Jon