How does it become the Body and the Blood?

[George]

We pray during the Divine Liturgy that the Holy Spirit will descend and transform the Gifts.

 

[Josiah]

Lutherans have no dogma on the WHEN or HOW or for HOW LONG. Only that such IS His Body and Blood (an affirmation that we understand does not remove the "IS" from the bread and wine, as well - we just are amazingly uninterested in the bread and wine).

SOME Lutherans would point to the Words of Consecration (and the Sign of the Cross).... others would point to the RECEIVING .... but both are OPINIONS and not dogma. Lutherans believe the Bible simply is not definitive on this.

Catholic and Lutherans on Holy Communion

It’s really important to remember that both Catholics and Lutherans (then and now) stress Christ’s real presence in Communion. Both had a “beef” especially with Zwingli and his “is means isn’t” concept of “symbolic presence” more than they disagreed with each other. For Lutherans and Catholics, the issue was never whether we receive CHRIST in the Sacrament, the issue was whether we should leave the mystery as mystery (and just accept what's said) or substitute some human theory about this.


Let’s carefully look at the relevant Scriptures here…

Matthew 26:26-29, “While they were still eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is my body.’ Then He took the cup, (wine) gave thanks and offered it to them saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many of you for the forgiveness of sins. I tell, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) again until I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

1 Corinthians 11:23-29, “Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is for you, do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, He took the cup saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, do this, as often as you drink it, remembering me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

As Lutherans look at the Scriptures, they believe that the meaning of “is” is “is.” (Yup, it IS just that simple for Lutherans!) Jesus says “This IS my Body… this IS my Blood.” “Is” has to do with reality, existing, being, presence. We believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, “for real” - and this is the essence of the doctrine of Real Presence. Lutherans accept this “at His word” and as a mystery. They do not even attempt to get into the science or physics of all this (in fact, they totally avoid that; this is mystery, this is a miracle) – they don’t believe we are being cannibals (an early charge against Christians!) and they realize that it doesn’t look or taste like anything other than bread and wine, but they take Jesus at His word – and leave it at that. It’s no more complex than that. Lutherans don’t get into the “when, where, how” of it, the physics or philosophy of it, and they CERTAINLY don’t want to deny any of it. “IS” = is (being, present, exists, real). “Body” = body. “Blood” = blood. Yup.

Now, Lutherans also do not deny that bread and wine are present, too. As they look at the Scriptures, they see that after the Consecration, Lutherans find the realities referred to as bread, wine, body and blood – all FOUR, without any distinction or differentiation, and thus they just accept that all 4 are “real” and “there.” The focus, of course, is entirely on the Body and Blood (so they speak of it as such), the bread and wine are pretty insignificant – maybe even irrelevant (you can have bread and wine any day!) but they accept that bread and wine are “really there,” too. It is only the bread and wine that our senses perceive, but our faith perceives much more!

Also, Lutherans simply "leave alone" all issues of HOW this happens.... WHEN this happens.... for HOW LONG this happens.... It's okay to ask questions, it's just not okay to appoint self to "answer" them and then require that both God and the Church must agree with self on this. These are part of the MYSTERY....


Transubstantiation?

In the middle ages, some Catholics began to theorize HOW Christ becomes present in the Sacrament. Lots of theories were proposed, and among them was one called “Transubstantiation.” This was not yet dogma in Luther’s time but it was the common “explanation.” Lutherans and Catholics disagreed over it. Essentially, this theory states the bread and wine were converted into the body and blood (in a very specific sense and manner) and thus cease to exist in any real or full way (Catholicism says they exist only as an “Aristotelian Accidents” - from the philosopher Aristotle’s theory of accidents); the Catholic Church now speaks only of the “appearance” of bread and wine “remaining” but insists that the bread and wine are not really “there.” The whole point is to deny something being present (something the Bible states after the Consecration). The bread and wine were “transubstantiated” (from the concept of alchemy) into the Body and Blood of Jesus. We should note that the definitive word in the text is not “change” or “into” but “is.” Luther was really uncomfortable with this bold attempt to deny stuff in the text, to mess with the word “is.”

Luther found this theory (coming out of medieval Catholic Scholasticism) to be textually baseless, without Tradition and potentially dangerous. Of course, Lutherans leave the issue exactly where God does, and consider the issue as Mystery, a miracle, but the “danger” comes when “is” doesn’t mean “is’ and stuff in the text must be denied as actually real and present. It’s too much like Zwingli’s “is means isn’t” view. If we insists that “is” doesn’t mean “is” then we just have various opinions about what Jesus and Paul should have said instead. Luther wanted to protect the “is” as is (real, exists, present) and not endanger that with “is doesn’t mean is but something else.” And of course, that’s exactly what some Christian were saying! Some Protestants eventually embraced the “is doesn’t mean is” view and got caught up in this question Catholics raised: “what actually ISN’T present that the Bible mentions here?” Some Protestants today hold that the bread and wine are “real” but the Body and Blood are not; they are “present” at most in some spiritual or representative or symbolic “sense;” that “is” means “isn’t” and some of what the Bible speaks of “just can’t be present.” Lutherans shiver when hearing that! A “big deal?” I’ll leave that up to you….. Today, Lutherans and Catholics celebrate that they agree on what IS present! Christ! With all His love, mercy, grace, forgiveness and power!

.





.

 

[NewCreation435]

Why does it need to be transformed? I believe the language Jesus used was largely symbolic just as when he told the crowd listening to him to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Obviously, he was not being literal

 

[Josiah]

Why does it need to be transformed?

Lutherans just accept what Jesus and Paul said. Is. Is = is. It has to do with reality, presence, existence, being there. Jesus and Paul didn't say "change" "transform" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "accident" "symbolizes" "not" "just kidding" or "isn't."




.

 

[Lamb]

We don't know "how" but we do know "why" and that is given in the text when Jesus said it is for the forgiveness of sins and "for you". We don't know the exact moment but we do know that when Jesus said "this is my body" and "this is my blood" and also "this do" that He promises to be present. Does it happen when the pastor says the words of institution or when we actually receive? We don't know.

 

[Albion]

Does it happen when the pastor says the words of institution

For us, it's "yes"

or when we actually receive?

"no."

 

[Lamb]

This is what Lutherans believe from the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord: http://bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php

Since a misunderstanding and dissension among some teachers of the Augsburg Confession also has occurred concerning consecration and the common rule, that nothing is a sacrament without the appointed use [or divinely instituted act], we have made a fraternal and unanimous declaration to one another also concerning this matter to the following purport, 74] namely, that not the word or work of any man produces the true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper, whether it be the merit or recitation of the minister, or the eating and drinking or faith of the communicants; but all this should be ascribed alone to the power of Almighty God and the word, institution, and ordination of our Lord Jesus Christ.

75] For the true and almighty words of Jesus Christ which He spake at the first institution were efficacious not only at the first Supper, but they endure, are valid, operate, and are still efficacious [their force, power, and efficacy endure and avail even to the present], so that in all places where the Supper is celebrated according to the institution of Christ, and His words are used, the body and blood of Christ are truly present, distributed, and received, because of the power and efficacy of the words which Christ spake at the first Supper. For where His institution is observed and His words are spoken over the bread and cup [wine], and the consecrated bread and cup [wine] are distributed, Christ Himself, through the spoken words, is still efficacious by virtue of the first institution, through His word, which He wishes to be there repeated. 76] As Chrysostom says (in Serm. de Pass.) in his Sermon concerning the Passion: Christ Himself prepared this table and blesses it; for no man makes the bread and wine set before us the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself who was crucified for us. The words are spoken by the mouth of the priest, but by God's power and grace, by the word, where He speaks: "This is My body," the elements presented are consecrated in the Supper. And just as the declaration, Gen. 1:28: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth," was spoken only once, but is ever efficacious in nature, so that it is fruitful and multiplies, so also this declaration ["This is My body; this is My blood"] was spoken once, but even to this day and to His advent it is efficacious, and works so that in the Supper of the Church His true body and blood are present.

77] Luther also [writes concerning this very subject in the same manner], Tom. VI, Jena, Fol. 99: This His command and institution have this power and effect that we administer and receive not mere bread and wine, but His body and blood, as His words declare: "This is My body," etc.; "This is My blood," etc., so that it is not our work or speaking, but the command and ordination of Christ that makes the bread the body, and the wine the blood, from the beginning of the first Supper even to the end of the world, and that through our service and office they are daily distributed.

78] Also, Tom. III, Jena, Fol. 446: Thus here also, even though I should pronounce over all bread the words: This is Christ's body, nothing, of course, would result therefrom; but when in the Supper we say, according to His institution and command: "This is My body," it is His body, not on account of our speaking or word uttered [because these words, when uttered, have this efficacy], but because of His command-that He has commanded us thus to speak and to do, and has united His command and act with our speaking.

 

[NewCreation435]

Lutherans just accept what Jesus and Paul said. Is. Is = is. It has to do with reality, presence, existence, being there. Jesus and Paul didn't say "change" "transform" "alchemy" "transubstantiation" "accident" "symbolizes" "not" "just kidding" or "isn't."




.

So your saying that other denominations other than Lutheran don't accept what Jesus said? I find that rather insulting.

 

[Josiah]

So your saying that other denominations other than Lutheran don't accept what Jesus said? I find that rather insulting.

You turned what I posted upside down.... it is an affirmation, not a criticism.

Perhaps you prefer it this way: In the Eucharistic texts, Lutherans embrace that the meaning of "is" is literally "is" so what what Jesus and Paul said "is" actually "is" which we understand means that the Body and Blood of Christ is present. For Lutherans, all the words present are accepted, the words "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness" however Lutherans embrace that the following words are not present and are not accepted,, the words "not" "isn't" "symbolize" "just kidding" "change" "transform" "transubstantiation" "accident" "Aristotle" "from" and "into."




.

 

[NewCreation435]

You turned what I posted upside down.... it is an affirmation, not a criticism.

Perhaps you prefer it this way: In the Eucharistic texts, Lutherans embrace that the meaning of "is" is literally "is" so what what Jesus and Paul said "is" actually "is" which we understand means that the Body and Blood of Christ is present. For Lutherans, all the words present are accepted, the words "is" "body" "blood" "bread" "wine" "forgiveness" however Lutherans embrace that the following words are not present and are not accepted,, the words "not" "isn't" "symbolize" "just kidding" "change" "transform" "transubstantiation" "accident" "Aristotle" "from" and "into."




.

No, I think I understood you quite clearly. Thanks

 

[Particular]

So your saying that other denominations other than Lutheran don't accept what Jesus said? I find that rather insulting.

Yep. It is insulting.
The issue has nothing to do with whether a Christian believes Jesus sacrificial atonement is effective and expressed in communion. We all do.
The difference is that Lutherans and Catholics are being extremely literal with what Jesus said, while ignoring that at the last supper the bread did not turn into human flesh and the wine did not turn into human blood. Thus Jesus could not be speaking literally when he clearly says to "do this in remembrance of me."
Also, the argument of "real presence" makes Jesus actual sacrifice insufficient. Instead, everytime one eats the wafer and drinks the wine, "real presence" requires Jesus to die over and over again in a "real" way.

I don't see Jesus teaching anything like that in the gospels.

 

[George]

The difference is that Lutherans and Catholics are being extremely literal with what Jesus said, while ignoring that at the last supper the bread did not turn into human flesh and the wine did not turn into human blood. Thus Jesus could not be speaking literally when he clearly says to "do this in remembrance of me."

I would say that since Christ was physically present at the Last Supper, the one whose Body and Blood would be changed from the Bread and the Wine did not need to change that night. But being that Christ is not physically on the Earth, hence why we say the Gifts are changed. It is a bloodless sacrifice.

 

[Particular]

I would say that since Christ was physically present at the Last Supper, the one whose Body and Blood would be changed from the Bread and the Wine did not need to change that night.

Doesn't "is" mean "is?"

But being that Christ is not physically on the Earth, hence why we say the Gifts are changed. It is a bloodless sacrifice.

So, Christ isn't really present?
You still don't explain why Christ would need to die repeatedly in communion?
I don't think Christ was being literal. If he was, he wouldn't say "do this in remembrance of me." Instead he would have said "do this to experience my sacrificial atonement over and over again."
Everytime we would receive communion we would really be present at the cross and Christ would really be upon the cross. You would really be eating his flesh and really drinking his blood.
Therefore to say "is means is" makes Jesus sacrificial atonement perpetually needed and never quite sufficient. Christ can never come off the cross.

 

[Albion]

You still don't explain why Christ would need to die repeatedly in communion?

I may have missed something here. Who said that Christ has to die repeatedly in order to be present in the sacrament? And why would that have to be the case anyway?

I don't think Christ was being literal. If he was, he wouldn't say "do this in remembrance of me." Instead he would have said "do this to experience my sacrificial atonement over and over again."

That seems illogical to me. Of course he could say to commemorate him every time the meal was served. That's entirely reasonable. Remember also that among his words spoken at the Last Supper about the event, were these: "DO THIS, AS OFT AS YOU SHALL DRINK THIS...."

Therefore to say "is means is" makes Jesus sacrificial atonement perpetually needed...

Or perpetually meaningful.

 

[Josiah]

PARTICULAR...

The difference is that Lutherans and Catholics are being extremely literal with what Jesus said

All the evidence suggests that EVERY Christian for over 1500 years (and most to this day) understood that when Jesus and Paul said (and stressed) "is" well, that's what they meant. There is no evidence for this "is means isn't" view until Zwingli in the 16th Century.

the bread did not turn into human flesh and the wine did not turn into human blood.

Lutherans do not accept that anything ever did or does turn into anything. There is NO eucharistic text that so much as mentions "isn't" "can't be" "symbolize" "just kidding" "not" "change" "transform" "Aristotle" "accident". Thus, Lutherans do not accept the two new dogmas that delete the word "is" and replace it with one of those;.

Jesus could not be speaking literally

Yeah, that IS the basis of the Zwinglian denial in the 16th Century, the changing of the word "is" to "isn't." He insisted what Jesus said cannot be true, thus it's not. Simple. He thought what Jesus said and Paul penned can't be true - so it's not. Doing theology by insisting (after 1500 years of all Christians believing different, in spite of directly contradicting Scripture) "But that just can't be true" seems to me to be a bad approach to dogma.

he clearly says to "do this in remembrance of me."

Yup. Two REASONS for it: Two reasons for DOING this: 1) rememberance/celebration 2) forgiveness.

But WHY it's done is not the same issue as WHAT it is.

the argument of "real presence" makes Jesus actual sacrifice insufficient. Instead, everytime one eats the wafer and drinks the wine, "real presence" requires Jesus to die over and over again in a "real" way

Wrong. Neither Jesus or Paul say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about the eucharist being a sacrifice or the sacrifice or instead of some sacrifice.

Try reading the words.

Here's what you will find. Very clearly. Sometimes repeatedly.

THIS

IS

BODY

BLOOD

BREAD

WINE

FORGIVENESS

REMEMBRANCE

Here's what you won't find , perhaps not because Jesus and Paul were remiss but because they aren't the case:

NOT

ISN'T

JUST KIDDING

SYMBOLIZE

CAN'T BE

CHANGE

TRANSFORM

ACCIDENT

SACRIFICE





.

 

[Particular]

I may have missed something here. Who said that Christ has to die repeatedly in order to be present in the sacrament? And why would that have to be the case anyway?


That seems illogical to me. Of course he could say to commemorate him every time the meal was served. That's entirely reasonable. Remember also that among his words spoken at the Last Supper about the event, were these: "DO THIS, AS OFT AS YOU SHALL DRINK THIS...."


Or perpetually meaningful.

Being meaningful has nothing to do with the bread and wine having to become the actual physical body and blood of Jesus. Even in the upper room the bread and wine did not turn into the literal body and blood of Jesus.

The context of the Last Supper conveys that Jesus disciples are to meaningfully remember that Jesus, 2000 years ago, died as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of Jesus elect disciples.

To state that everytime we remember Jesus sacrifice in the ceremony of communion, we re-crucify Jesus by physically eating his flesh and drinking his blood in a "real presence" is contrary to Jesus statement when upon the cross he cried "it is finished."

Real presence does not require Jesus literal blood and body be re-created in perpetual sacrifice. Jesus is really present in the remembrance and the ceremony. His flesh and blood is not required for that to be true.

 

[Particular]

PARTICULAR...





All the evidence suggests that EVERY Christian for over 1500 years (and most to this day) understood that when Jesus and Paul said (and stressed) "is" well, that's what they meant. There is no evidence for this "is means isn't" view until Zwingli in the 16th Century.







Lutherans do not accept that anything ever did or does turn into anything. There is NO eucharistic text that so much as mentions "isn't" "can't be" "symbolize" "just kidding" "not" "change" "transform" "Aristotle" "accident". Thus, Lutherans do not accept the two new dogmas that delete the word "is" and replace it with one of those;.






Yeah, that IS the basis of the Zwinglian denial in the 16th Century, the changing of the word "is" to "isn't." He insisted what Jesus said cannot be true, thus it's not. Simple. He thought what Jesus said and Paul penned can't be true - so it's not. Doing theology by insisting (after 1500 years of all Christians believing different, in spite of directly contradicting Scripture) "But that just can't be true" seems to me to be a bad approach to dogma.






Yup. Two REASONS for it: Two reasons for DOING this: 1) rememberance/celebration 2) forgiveness.

But WHY it's done is not the same issue as WHAT it is.






Wrong. Neither Jesus or Paul say ANYTHING WHATSOEVER about the eucharist being a sacrifice or the sacrifice or instead of some sacrifice.

Try reading the words.

Here's what you will find. Very clearly. Sometimes repeatedly.

THIS

IS

BODY

BLOOD

BREAD

WINE

FORGIVENESS

REMEMBRANCE

Here's what you won't find , perhaps not because Jesus and Paul were remiss but because they aren't the case:

NOT

ISN'T

JUST KIDDING

SYMBOLIZE

CAN'T BE

CHANGE

TRANSFORM

ACCIDENT

SACRIFICE





.

God can forgive and bring us remembrance without the bread and wine becoming the human flesh and human blood of Jesus.

Your argument of 1500 years of doing some tradition is irrelevant. The text of the Bible supercedes your traditions. When scripture shows your traditions to be wrong...you reform your traditions. Sadly, your church never truly reformed.

 

[Albion]

Being meaningful has nothing to do with the bread and wine having to become the actual physical body and blood of Jesus. Even in the upper room the bread and wine did not turn into the literal body and blood of Jesus.

Yes, but the two events are not comparable. At the Last Supper, the Lord obviously instituted something important and new. He commanded that it be repeated. And he described its new meaning and the content.

None of that applies to him sharing an ordinary meal with his disciples as he often did.

The context of the Last Supper conveys that Jesus disciples are to meaningfully remember that Jesus, 2000 years ago, died as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of Jesus elect disciples.

That's part of it.. Here we are discussing the other part.

To state that everytime we remember Jesus sacrifice in the ceremony of communion, we re-crucify Jesus by physically eating his flesh and drinking his blood in a "real presence" is contrary to Jesus statement when upon the cross he cried "it is finished."

I once again ask you where the "re-crucify Jesus" notion got into this thread. It's not the topic, and not part of the title.

presence does not require Jesus literal blood and body be re-created in perpetual sacrifice.

I agree. And none of that was part of the original post or the title of the thread, either.

Jesus is really present in the remembrance and the ceremony.

OBVIOUSLY, to be remembered is not to be actually present with the ones doing the remembering.

 

[Albion]

God can forgive and bring us remembrance without the bread and wine becoming the human flesh and human blood of Jesus.

Of course he can. But here we are discussing what he actually DID.

When scripture shows your traditions to be wrong...you reform your traditions. Sadly, your church never truly reformed.

Interesting. But at least he identifies his church for all of us to see. What's yours?

 

[George]

Doesn't "is" mean "is?"


So, Christ isn't really present?
You still don't explain why Christ would need to die repeatedly in communion?
I don't think Christ was being literal. If he was, he wouldn't say "do this in remembrance of me." Instead he would have said "do this to experience my sacrificial atonement over and over again."
Everytime we would receive communion we would really be present at the cross and Christ would really be upon the cross. You would really be eating his flesh and really drinking his blood.
Therefore to say "is means is" makes Jesus sacrificial atonement perpetually needed and never quite sufficient. Christ can never come off the cross.

It can be looked at the same way of the word “Until” when it talks about the Virginity of Mary. It’s not a blood sacrifice, it’s bloodless. Surely such a large commandment wouldn’t just be literal.