Lutherans: Holy Communion

[Josiah]

This Sacrament, also known as the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper, may be thought of as “God’s way of hugging us.” Jesus shares the promised blessing: “This is My blood which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28).



While this Sacrament doesn’t play a huge role in Scripture, we know that it did in the earliest church. Christians cherished this Sacrament and included it in their Sunday worship.



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.”



Real Presence!



Historically, this has been one of the most stressed and treasured teachings of Christianity. As we look at the Scriptures, a literal reading embraces that the meaning of “is” is “is.” Jesus says “This IS my Body… this IS my Blood.” We believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, fully, “for real” and this is the essence of the doctrine of Real Presence. We accept this “at His word” and as a mystery. We do not even attempt to get into the science or physics of all this – we don’t believe we are being cannibals (an early charge against Christians!) and we realize that it doesn’t look or taste like anything other than bread and wine, but we take Jesus at His word – and leave it at that. We don’t get into the questions of HOW or WHEN or WHY – we just accept that the word “is” means exists, present, “there.”



But while not specifically a part of our doctrine, we do not deny that bread and wine are present, too. As we look at the Scriptures, we see that after the Consecration, we find the realities referred to as bread, wine, body and blood – all FOUR, without any distinction or differentiation, and thus we just accept that all 4 are “real” and “there.” In a sense, all 4 are the “is.” The focus, of course, is entirely on the Body and Blood (so we speak of it as such), the bread and wine are fairly irrelevant (you can have bread and wine any day!) but we accept that bread and wine are equally “really there,” too. It is only the bread and wine that our senses perceive, but our faith perceives much more! The Eucharist is not just bread and wine, it is also Jesus! This is Real Presence.



Newer Catholic and "Evangelical" Views….



Real Presence was the view from the earliest Christians, and is still the doctrine among Lutheran, Orthodox and many Anglican and some Methodist Christians. But the Catholic Church changed it with a concept called “Transubstantiation.” Technically, the unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation (1551) does not replace Real Presence (since, again, Real Presence is simply the literal affirmation that Christ is literally present) but adds to it.



The Catholic Dogma of Transubstantiation dogmatically rejects 2 of the 4 realities spoken of in the biblical texts – the bread and the wine. The new Catholic dogma states the bread and wine were converted into the body and blood (in a specific sense) and thus cease to exist in any real way (Catholicism says they exist only as an “Aristotelian Accidents” - from the pagan 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 bread and wine were “transubstantiated” (from the concept of alchemy) into the Body and Blood of Jesus.



Transubstantiation was not a dogma in Luther’s day, but Luther and the Luther fathers did not embrace it. They found this theory (coming out of medieval Catholic Scholasticism) to be textually baseless (again – the Bible says “is” not “converts” and the Bible speaks equally of FOUR things after the Consecration – Body, Blood, bread and wine) and simple irrelevant - a classic case of just going too far, applying too much human “stuff’. It does nothing to affirm Real Presence and focuses instead on the bread and wine – which just doesn’t matter much. There’s nothing achieved by embracing two abiblical pagan theories – from alchemy and Aristotle – to try to deny the bread and wine, especially since we all agree the bread and wine are not the point anyway. Lutherans simply don’t get into “scientific” theories here (much less make them dogma!), we rather leave the issue exactly where God does, and consider the issue as Mystery. If someone wants to embrace some pious opinion about HOW of all this (or a host of other matters), fine – but that doesn’t make it dogma. We simply embrace that what is said is literally true: IS…. BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE. We just accept that. All of that. As mystery. Letting God have the last word.



Transubstantiation requires a “split interpretation” of the texts whereas 2 realities are taken literally and 2 are taken figuratively (essentially explained away) in spite of no textual indication for such a distinction. The 16th Century reformer Zwingli eventually did the same thing, only embracing the bread and wine as “real” and the body and blood as not “real,” requiring the same “split interpretation” of the texts, the same need to explain away 2 of the 4 things the Bible speaks of after the Consecration. Many modern
“Evangelical” Protestants (especially in the USA) eventually embraced Zwingli’s view. It affirms the bread and wine are “real” but the Body and Blood are not; they are “present” only in some symbolic “sense.”



While Lutherans find the new Catholic essential denial of the bread and wine as pretty irrelevant (they don’t really matter), we find the typical Zwinglian/Evangelical denial of the Body and Blood more troubling – Jesus does matter! But in both cases, the Mystery is being subjected to science concepts, the issue seems to be what “can’t” be instead of what Scripture simply says. Lutherans believe we should leave it as the glorious Mystery the Bible presents, letting God have the last word. It doesn’t matter if our brains can explain things scientifically, if we can’t explain “how can that be?” What matters is that our faith embraces the Mystery of Christ’s presence. Lutherans stick with the ancient, biblical affirmation of Real Presence – adding or subtracting nothing from it.



Real Blessings!

Besides the obvious blessing of Christ’s presence, we also receive the assurance of His love, presence and forgiveness!




.

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

Is a priesthood required?

 

[Faithhopeandcharity]

What about the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ?

 

[Lanman87]

I appreciate this post and the one about Baptism.

I believe there is another view on Communion. The Reformed/Presbyterian view.

This is an excerpt from a Presbyterian Church of America website.

Reformed Christians affirm the real presence of Christ, but this presence is not physical; it’s spiritual. In other words, the Holy Spirit enables believers on earth to have real communion with Christ in heaven. We are drawn to Christ in his heavenly presence. At the Table, believers commune with the exalted Christ and are fed and nourished by him. Christ meets us in Communion and gives himself to us, nourishing our faith. The bread and wine remain bread and wine, but there is a real relation between the signs of bread and wine with the life-giving virtue of Christ’s body and blood when we eat and drink in faith

 

[Josiah]

COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

.


Let's very carefully look at the Eucharistic texts, noting carefully the words - what Jesus said and Paul penned, and equally what they did not.


Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. 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."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.



There are three basic "takes" on this in modern Western Christianity.....



REAL PRESENCE: Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, some Anglicans and Methodists.
"Is" means "is" (real, present, exists)


Real Presence is:

1. Real Presence accepts the words of Jesus and Paul. Nothing added, nothing substracted, nothing modified.

2. Real Presence accepts that the meaning of is is is. This means that we receive Christ - quite literally, physically. When my pastor gives me the host, his exact words are: "Josiah, this is the Body of Christ."


Real Presence is NOT..

1. Real Presence is not a dogmatic denial of the words "bread" and "wine" AFTER the consecration as if we must take a "half real/half symbolic" interpretation of the text. It simply regards such as irrelevant. The point of Real Presence is the presence of CHRIST. It's not called, "The Denial of What Paul Wrote" because that's not what it is, it is the AFFIRMATION of what he penned and what Christ said: the body is, the blood is, CHRIST is present.

2. Real Presence is not a theory about anything or explanation regarding anything. It simply embraces EXACTLY and LITERALLY what Jesus said and Paul penned. The HOW and the physics are left entirely alone.

3. Real Presence doesn't teach or deny any "change." The word "change" never appears in any Eucharistic text and thus Real Presence has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Rather, it embraces what it IS - because that does appear in the texts and seems significant. "IS" means is - it has to do be BEING. If I say, This car is a Toyota, that doesn't imply that it was once a cow but the atoms were re-arranged so that now it is a Toyota. Accepting, "This is a Toyota" simply and only means this is a Toyota.

Now, without a doubt, the faith and conviction raises some questions. But Real Presence has always regarded all this to be MYSTERY. How it happens, Why it happens, exactly What happens - it doesn't matter. We believe because Jesus said and Paul so penned by inspiration. That's good enough for the Orthodox and Lutherans, as well as many Anglicans and Methodist. And was for the RCC until 1551 when the RCC alone dogmatized a second view about the Eucharist.


Orthodox, Lutherans and some Anglicans and Methodist embrace Real Presence. The Catholic Church does too but it has been entirely buried under it's own unique new secondary dogma, that of Transubstantiation, so much so that many Catholics I've found don't even know what Real Presence is, only the new unique RCC second dogma.



TRANSUBSTANTIATION: Modern Catholic Church.
"Is" means "changed via an alchemic transubstantiation leaving behind a mixture of reality and Aristotelian accidents."


This is a separate Eucharistic dogma of the individual Roman Catholic Church (alone), officially and dogmatically since 1551.

The Mystery of Real Presence does raise some questions (unanswered by Scripture or the ECF). All regarded these as just that - questions (and irrelevant ones at that), until western Roman Catholic "Scholasticism" arose in the middle ages. It was focused on combining Christian thought with secular ideas - in the hopes of making Christianity more intellectual and even more to explain away some of its mysteries. It eventually came up with several theories about the Eucharist. One of these was "Transubstantiation."

Although no one claims there's any biblical confirmation of this, and while all admit it lacks any ecumenical or historic embrace, it should be noted that there are a FEW snippets from RCC "Fathers" that speak of "change." But, while Orthodox, Lutherans and others are comfortable with that word, it doesn't imply any transubstantiation.

"Transubstantiation" is a very precise, technical term from alchemy. You'll recall from high school chemistry class that alchemy was the dream that, via incantations and the use of chemicals and herbs, fundamental substance (we'll call such elements) may be transformed from one to entirely others (lead to gold was the typical objective). These western, medieval, Catholic "Scholastics" theorized that the Consecration is an alchemic transubstantiation.

This, however, caused a bit of a problem! Because, in alchemy, the transubstantiated substance normally would have the properties of the NEW substance, and one of the "questions" of Real Presense is why it still has the properties of bread and wine. Here these western, medival Catholic theorists turned to another pop idea of the day: Accidents. This came hook, line and sinker from Aristotle. He theorized that substance could have properties (he called them "accidents" - it's a very precise term for his theory) that are entirely unrelated to the substance. Sometimes called "ghost physics," the one part of his theory of "accidents" seemed especially useful to these medieval Catholic theorists. He stated that properties of one thing could CONTINUE after the actual causative substannce ceased. His example was lightening. Seeing the connection between lightening and thunder, but knowing nothing of wave physics, he taught that the SOUND of lightening continues long after the lightening ceased to exist: this is an "accident." This, then , is what we have in the Eucharist: ACCIDENTS of bread and wine (since, in transubstantiation, bread and wine no longer exist in any real physics sense - it was transubstantiated). No one claims that this has any biblical confirmation or that the RCC "father" referenced Aristotle's Accidents - even as pure theoretical pious opinion.

In Catholicism, there are TWO dogmas vis-a-vis the Eucharist: Real Presence and Transubstantiation. The later was first suggested in the 9th century and made dogma in 1551 (a bit after Luther's death), some say in order to anathematize Luther on the Eucharist since he did not affirm such. Luther regarded it as abiblical, textually problemmatic and unnecessary.


SYMBOLIC PRESENCE: Many Protestant denominations
"IS" means "symbolizes, reminds"

Look again at the Eucharistic texts. An important aspect is (with apologies to Bill Clinton), what the meaning of "is" is....

While Real Presence was nearly universal, there have always been those few with "questions" that made this doctrine problematic for them. The mystery was difficult for them to embrace. This became far more common begining in the 16th century. Some said that Christ CANNOT be present in the Eucharist because He is in heaven and CANNOT be here - physically anyway. To them, "is" cannot mean "is" - it MUST be a metaphor, it must actually mean "symbolize." Metaphor is certainly not unknown in Scripture, the question becomes: is that the case HERE?

This view stresses the "Remember me...." concept. They tend to see the Eucharist as an ordinance (something we do for God) rather than as a Sacrament (something God does for us), a matter of Law rather then Gospel.


One might summerize the 3 common views this way:


LUTHERANS: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.


ROMAN CATHOLIC: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic Transubstatiation.


EVANGELICALS: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.



- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

Matthew 26:26-29

26. While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27. Then he took the cup (wine), gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."


First Corinthians 11:23-29

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24. 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."
25. In the same way, after supper he took the cup (wine), saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26. For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.
28. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup.
29. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.


REAL PRESENCE is based on the following words above:
Bread
Wine/cup
Is
Body
Blood

TRANSUBSTANTIATION is based on the following words of the texts:
Not
Change
Become
Transubstantiation
Accident
Appearance

SYMBOLIC is based on the following words of the texts.
Symbolize
Represents
Reminds




Lanman87 -

You are correct, there is another position - that of John Calvin, a variation of the Real Presence view. I did not include it simply because it is not common;. My wife comes out of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church - a very conservative and VERY tiny Reformed denomination. There, this Calvinist view is upheld. But I understand that this view has been almost completely abandoned by Reformed Christians today, replaced by the Zwinglian "symbolic" view.



Blessings


Josiah




.

 

[Lanman87]

There, this Calvinist view is upheld. But I understand that this view has been almost completely abandoned by Reformed Christians today, replaced by the Zwinglian "symbolic" view.

Maybe by individuals but it is my understanding that the large Presbyterian denominations uphold the Westminster Confession of Faith. Certainly the PCA does on their website. (If I were going to be Presbyterian it would be PCA).

From the WCF:

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.


In practice this belief may have fallen by the wayside as you indicate. But "officially" I believe most Reformed churches still hold this view.

 

[Josiah]

The is 41 minutes long and only audio... but very insightful!

Baptist, Anglican/Episcopalian, Reformed/Presbyterian and Lutheran theologians discuss their various views.

https://whi-radio-members.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/2023whi1676may21-extended.mp3

.

 

[Albion]

Hooray for renewed activity in the theology section of CH, but the first minute and a half of this 40 minutes "video" seems to present a shotgun of ideas about the Eucharist, making me not want to stay with it for the next 38 minutes.

I know that what follows might be terrific, but would you be willing to start us off by summarizing the points that you expect us to get from the presentation?

 

[Josiah]

Hooray for renewed activity in the theology section of CH, but the first minute and a half of this 40 minutes "video" seems to present a shotgun of ideas about the Eucharist, making me not want to stay with it for the next 38 minutes.

I know that what follows might be terrific, but would you be willing to start us off by summarizing the points that you expect us to get from the presentation?

Yeah... sitting passively through 41 minutes of JUST audio is tough.... It would help of The White Horse Inn at least showed video of the guys discussing stuff.

I don't know if you are familiar with The White Horse Inn. It's a radio program, around for a long time now, between various "branches" of conservative, traditional, Reformation Protestants: Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican and Baptist. www.whitehorseinn.org

The discussion here is between several conservative Protestants: a Lutheran, a Presbyterian (from the OPC I think), a Baptist and an Anglican. Each giving their "take" on Communion. Each distances themselves from the Trent form of Transubstantiation and from Zwingli's "memorial" view (the Presbyterian doing what I've seen them often do - presenting a "spiritual" REAL PRESENCE view and decrying the typical Presbyterian modern embrace of Zwingli). The Lutheran view gets the shortest time. I found the Baptist guy the most informative since I thought they all were just Zwinglian - but he's presenting a twist on that.

Blessings, friend.


Josiah

 

[Albion]

Yeah... sitting passively through 41 minutes of JUST audio is tough.... It would help of The White Horse Inn at least showed video of the guys discussing stuff.

I agree.

I don't know if you are familiar with The White Horse Inn. It's a radio program, around for a long time now, between various "branches" of conservative, traditional, Reformation Protestants: Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican and Baptist. www.whitehorseinn.org

The discussion here is between several conservative Protestants: a Lutheran, a Presbyterian (from the OPC I think), a Baptist and an Anglican. Each giving their "take" on Communion. Each distances themselves from the Trent form of Transubstantiation

as expected.

and from Zwingli's "memorial" view (the Presbyterian doing what I've seen them often do - presenting a "spiritual" REAL PRESENCE view and decrying the typical Presbyterian modern embrace of Zwingli).

Okay.

The Lutheran view gets the shortest time.

Unfortunately.

I found the Baptist guy the most informative

Interesting!

since I thought they all were just Zwinglian - but he's presenting a twist on that.

Now you have me.

Blessings, friend.

Thank you, Josiah. Now I'll have to take at least a quick look.