Lutheran View of the Eucharist

[benedictine]

What are the views of the various Lutheran Groups on the Eucharist?

[Protoevangel]

“Take, eat; this is My body” clearly states: “With this bread I give you My body.” These words are explained succinctly in 1 Corinthians 10:16. There is no transubstantiation and no consubstantiation. In, with, and under the bread and wine a communicant receives Christ's true body, given into death, and His true blood, shed for sins.

[Qoheleth]

There is no transubstantiation and no consubstantiation. In, with, and under the bread and wine a communicant receives Christ's true body, given into death, and His true blood, shed for sins.

In, With, and Under were terms used to describe the Sacrament to be Consubstantial, Transubstantial and Mystical all at the same time, with none being accurate enough. The real physical presence of Christ for Lutherans is a mystery and no definition can translate the Sacrament fully.

Q

[ctobola]

Some would say that Lutherans believe the same as Roman Catholics -- Christ is truly present in the elements -- we just don't try to explain it. We let it be a mystery.

For some of us, we prefer to avoid the term eucharist, which means thanksgiving. The word comes from the Roman Catholic tradition, which puts more emphasis on the Church (embodied in the priest) offering up Christ (as a sacrifice) and the thankful response of the people to God.

In the Lutheran tradition, the focus is more on Christ coming to us. Some of us avoid the term eucharist because it seems to put the emphasis back on us and our response, instead of our Savior.

In Christ, -Cloy





What are the views of the various Lutheran Groups on the Eucharist?

[KagomeShuko]

Christ is truly present in, with, and under the bread and the wine.

Cloy, I can't say that we believe the same as Catholics. They believe that the bread and the wine literally *turn into* Christ's blood and body. Lutherans believe in the real presence and say it is a mystery that cannot be explained, as Christ said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood."

Stein Auf!
Bridget

Side note: I was quite disturbed by one of the confirmation projects that I saw at the church in Tulsa. It was "about" communion and it said EVERYTHING was symbolic. . .and the pastor didn't even know that this type of thing was happening. (The pastor also avoided the direct answer to "is Luther's Small Catechism used in confirmation" He gave one of those round about, get out of the answering the question answers.)

[ctobola]

Bridget,

Read my comment again -- "...Christ is truly present in the elements -- we just don't try to explain it [as the Roman Catholics do]."

Just as the RCs, we believe "This is my body/blood..." are literal statements, not a figurative (symbolic) ones.

How is that different from what you're saying?

-Cloy



Christ is truly present in, with, and under the bread and the wine.

Cloy, I can't say that we believe the same as Catholics. They believe that the bread and the wine literally *turn into* Christ's blood and body. Lutherans believe in the real presence and say it is a mystery that cannot be explained, as Christ said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood."

Stein Auf!
Bridget

Side note: I was quite disturbed by one of the confirmation projects that I saw at the church in Tulsa. It was "about" communion and it said EVERYTHING was symbolic. . .and the pastor didn't even know that this type of thing was happening. (The pastor also avoided the direct answer to "is Luther's Small Catechism used in confirmation" He gave one of those round about, get out of the answering the question answers.)

[Jenna]

Now, while I haven't been able to find the statement in the RCC catechism, I have heard from a large number of Catholics that *they* take transubstantion to mean that when the bread and wine are concecrated that they no longer exist as the bread and wine, only as the body and blood of Christ. An equally numerous number of Catholics have expressed the idea that the bread and wine are still obviously there, and they do not reflect deeply on the "how", which makes up the mystery of communion. Even more "interesting" still are the Catholics who claim that they have seen bread and wine physically turn into flesh and blood. Now, I think taking communion at that altar would be a little disturbing. ;)

[KagomeShuko]

Now, while I haven't been able to find the statement in the RCC catechism, I have heard from a large number of Catholics that *they* take transubstantion to mean that when the bread and wine are concecrated that they no longer exist as the bread and wine, only as the body and blood of Christ. An equally numerous number of Catholics have expressed the idea that the bread and wine are still obviously there, and they do not reflect deeply on the "how", which makes up the mystery of communion. Even more "interesting" still are the Catholics who claim that they have seen bread and wine physically turn into flesh and blood. Now, I think taking communion at that altar would be a little disturbing. ;)

Thank you for that first sentence, Jenna. That's exactly of what I write. . .and it IS different. Lutherans believe that the bread and wine are still THERE and do not TURN INTO the body and blood. . .but that CHRIST is TRULY PRESENT in the elements.

Marv, do you get it. . .that it IS different?

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[BigNorsk]

I'm not quite sure why you ask if I get it? May I get an explanation, please.

Marv

[ctobola]

Bridget,

So here's what I hear you saying...
The difference between the RC and Lutheran views is not the TURN INTO part, it's whether the bread and wine continue to exist. The RCs would say that the bread and wine TURN INTO body and blood, and that the bread and wine cease to exist; Lutherans would say that the bread and wine have TURNED INTO body and blood, but also remain bread and wine.

Is that what you're saying?

-Cloy

P.S. I think it was me you were responding to, not Marv.


Thank you for that first sentence, Jenna. That's exactly of what I write. . .and it IS different. Lutherans believe that the bread and wine are still THERE and do not TURN INTO the body and blood. . .but that CHRIST is TRULY PRESENT in the elements.

Marv, do you get it. . .that it IS different?

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[KagomeShuko]

I'm not quite sure why you ask if I get it? May I get an explanation, please.

Marv

Sorry, I did mean Cloy. I was in a hurry!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[KagomeShuko]

Bridget,

So here's what I hear you saying...
The difference between the RC and Lutheran views is not the TURN INTO part, it's whether the bread and wine continue to exist. The RCs would say that the bread and wine TURN INTO body and blood, and that the bread and wine cease to exist; Lutherans would say that the bread and wine have TURNED INTO body and blood, but also remain bread and wine.

Is that what you're saying?

-Cloy

P.S. I think it was me you were responding to, not Marv.

Well, yes and no. RCs (at least that I know) say it is TURN INTO and the bread and wine no longer exist. Lutherans, the bread and wine ALWAYS exist. They are bread and wine first. When consecrated, the blood and body of the Lord is truly present AS WELL. "in, with, and under" Both are there. If something "turns into" something else, it is no longer there. . .so Lutherans do not believe the elements "turn into" the body and blood.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ctobola]

Bridget,

I see where you're going; the wording is just confusing.

I guess that still goes back to what I said earlier -- we Lutherans don't explain it. In the service of communion, RCs and Lutherans can both honestly say "this is the body of Christ, given for you."

When we get to questions like, "It still looks like bread... is it?", IHMO those are explanations.

Not sure if you're read some of the "out there" stuff that Thomas Aquainus wrote about communion... wild stuff like, if a man taking communion has a beard and the wine drips on the beard, what will happen. If I recall correctly, TA wrote (and the RCs adopted the idea), that the man could still go to heaven, but that his beard would burn in hell forever.:scratch:

In Christ, -c




Well, yes and no. RCs (at least that I know) say it is TURN INTO and the bread and wine no longer exist. Lutherans, the bread and wine ALWAYS exist. They are bread and wine first. When consecrated, the blood and body of the Lord is truly present AS WELL. "in, with, and under" Both are there. If something "turns into" something else, it is no longer there. . .so Lutherans do not believe the elements "turn into" the body and blood.

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[BigNorsk]

I think there is probably nothing else that is in as close agreement among Lutherans as what is the Lord's Supper.

People have already talked about the in, under, and with union of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Jesus.

The bread and wine don't disappear for they are still called bread and wine in the Bible.

The union isn't only spiritual like many other denominations want to say, they say that the body and blood is really there, but only in a spiritual sense.

Lutherans say that it is Jesus and not any other who produces the union.

Catholics would say the priest has the power to call down Jesus, turn the bread and wine into him, and then sacrifice him again.

Lutherans say only Jesus has such power to supernaturally unite himself to the elements, and the sacrifice on the cross is the only sacrifice. Daily sacrifices by a mortal priest have never taken away sin, only the perfect sacrifice of our immortal high priest, Jesus has that power.

Some protestants say it is the faith of the communicant that produces the uniting. Again we would say only Jesus has that power.

The veneration of the elements is also seen as idolatry, it could also be understood as idolatry to say the priest or the communicant has such power for it is giving a person the attributes of God.

Some say Communion is only an ordinance, that no grace can be received because that would be salvation by work.

Lutherans answer that Communion is "THE GOSPEL", properly done, it includes confession, absolution, God's Word (the Gospel) and the full acceptance of the Gospel message. If there is no grace there, where is it? One doesn't receive grace because you eat bread and drink wine, but that your hear and believe God's miraculous Words. You show your acceptance by eating and drinking but the whole thing is not a work of man, but a miracle of Jesus.

That's some rambling thoughts,
Marv

[JCrawf]

...Lutherans don't explain it. In the service of communion, RCs and Lutherans can both honestly say "this is the body of Christ, given for you."

As once being Lutheran for a time, as well as having family members and friends who are Lutheran (ELCA), I can somewhat understand what you are getting at. For Ecumenical purposes, I agree with what you say regarding the Last Supper celebration in as far as it relates to the Eucharist for Catholics. Another aspect is that we Catholics retain that the Eucharist is a Sacrament. What we can partly agree with in regards to Luther is as James A. Nestingen notes in Martin Luther: A Life, "Luther was convinced that the Spirit uses external means - the word preached by another person, the sacraments administered - to accomplish its purposes" (51).

Not sure if you're read some of the "out there" stuff that Thomas Aquainus wrote about communion... wild stuff like, if a man taking communion has a beard and the wine drips on the beard, what will happen. If I recall correctly, TA wrote (and the RCs adopted the idea), that the man could still go to heaven, but that his beard would burn in hell forever.:scratch:

Have you read this? I have yet to come across this in St. Thomas Aquinas' works as of yet. If you can get a direct quote with citations to back up this, it would be nice. I know St. Thomas Aquinas was rather articulate and detailed in regards to his writing, but I don't know if he was that detailed. :eek:

May God bless you and keep you. :prayer:

Peace be with you,

John

[JCrawf]

Lutherans say that it is Jesus and not any other who produces the union.

Catholics would say the priest has the power to call down Jesus, turn the bread and wine into him, and then sacrifice him again.

The Lutheran explanation is similar to the Catholic understanding. The priest in and of himself does not have any power except what is given to him by God. But anyways, this prayer is said in the liturgy of the Eucharist regarding the history of salvation:

Father, all-powerful and ever-living God,
we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks
through Jesus Christ our Lord

By his birth we are reborn.
In his suffering we are freed from sin.
By his rising from the dead we rise to everlasting life.
In his return to you in glory
we enter into your heavenly kingdom.

And so, we join the angels and the saints
as they sing their unending hymn of praise.

Lutherans say only Jesus has such power to supernaturally unite himself to the elements, and the sacrifice on the cross is the only sacrifice. Daily sacrifices by a mortal priest have never taken away sin, only the perfect sacrifice of our immortal high priest, Jesus has that power.

Indeed, it is through the power of our Lord Christ Jesus that sin is taken away. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.

The veneration of the elements is also seen as idolatry, it could also be understood as idolatry to say the priest or the communicant has such power for it is giving a person the attributes of God.

Veneration is not worship; veneration is honor, which is duly given to the saints. Worship and adoration is given to God alone. As it is, and because as a Catholic we believe in the true presence as transubstantiation, we adore the Eucharist as the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not the bread that is adored in Eucharistic adoration, but who we believe is truly present after transubstantiation occurs.

Some say Communion is only an ordinance, that no grace can be received because that would be salvation by work.

Lutherans answer that Communion is "THE GOSPEL", properly done, it includes confession, absolution, God's Word (the Gospel) and the full acceptance of the Gospel message. If there is no grace there, where is it? One doesn't receive grace because you eat bread and drink wine, but that your hear and believe God's miraculous Words. You show your acceptance by eating and drinking but the whole thing is not a work of man, but a miracle of Jesus.

Well, being that part of the mass is called the Liturgy of the Word, Id' say we are in somewhat agreement. The Eucharist indeed is essentially the Gospel. That is, it does present Jesus and most especially his sacrifice on Calvary. When we recieve the Eucharist as Catholics, it could be said that we accept our Lord's work on Calvary as the source as summit of our faith.

I don't mean to debate, and I hope this post didn't come off that way. My experience with Lutherans was good, and every now and then I would attend a Lutheran worship service, especially when I'm at home or my Uncle's. Of course, I take communion at Mass, but I still try to go if people I know who are Lutheran ask or are commonly inclined to go. I definately like the traditional form of the Lutheran worship service, mainly because it is very close to mass. Even like to compare the readings on Sunday, which quite often have paralleled the readings at mass. When I first noticed that, I thought that was pretty cool. And indeed, I respect the currently residing pastor at the local Lutheran chuch. A very holy, devout, and caring man with a wonderful family. I would definately speak a good word for him to St. Peter at the gates of Heaven. ;)

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. :crossrc:

Peace be with you,

John

[mookieghana]

I'll quote from the LCMS FAQ. Here, the term "Lutheran" is being applied to Missouri-Synod Lutherans, but I think both ELCA and WELS churches hold the same view.


Q. How does the Lord's Supper in the Lutheran church differ from that in the Roman Catholic and Baptist denominations?

A. At the risk of oversimplication, let me say briefly the following. Roman Catholics share with Lutherans a belief in the real presence of Christ's true body and blood in the elements of the Sacrament. However, disagreements have existed historically on whether or how the mystery of Christ's presence can be explained. Catholics explain the Real Presence through their doctrine of transubstantiation.

Lutherans reject such an attempt to explain the Real Presence and insist that we must adhere to the simple words of Christ and be content to believe them as a divine mystery beyond human comprehension or explanation. In addition, longstanding differences exist regarding the Catholic position on the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Lutherans have rejected any understanding of the Lord's Supper as a sacrificial act on our part, holding that it is purely God's gift through which He acts to impart His forgiveness and strength to communicants. With respect to Baptists, usually Baptists understanding the Lord's Supper as a symbolic act, including the elements of bread and wine as symbolizing Christ's presence--in contrast to the Lutheran position that Christ's true body and blood are present in, with, and under the external elements of bread and wine.

[KagomeShuko]

Welcome mookie! Indeed, the ELCA would completely agree with that statement!

Stein Auf!
Bridget

[ctobola]

...snip...

Catholics would say the priest has the power to call down Jesus, turn the bread and wine into him, and then sacrifice him again.

...snip...


Also known as the Eucharistic (Thanksgiving) Sacrifice.... it refers to the sacrifice that the Church (embodied in the priest) makes and offers to God.

For those that believe that it's about humanity offering Christ to God, the word Eucharist is appropriate.

If you happen to believe it's about Christ coming to us, then that word doesn't fit very well.

-Cloy

[ByzantineDixie]

For those that believe that it's about humanity offering Christ to God, the word Eucharist is appropriate.

If you happen to believe it's about Christ coming to us, then that word doesn't fit very well.


Of course the term Eucharist fits well! Its a term that has worked for 2000 years. The Lutheran Confessions (Apology) even explain why it fits well.

76 There are also statements about thanksgiving, like the beautiful statement of Cyprian about the godly communicant, “Piety distinguishes between what is given and what is forgiven, and it gives thanks to the Giver of such a generous blessing.”4 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=17244773#_ftn1) That is, piety looks at what is given and what is forgiven; it compares the greatness of God’s blessings with the greatness of our ills, our sin and our death; and it gives thanks. From this term “eucharist” arose in the church.
4 (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=17244773#_ftnref1)Pseudo-Cyprian, The Lord’s Supper and the First Institution, 7.

Tappert, T. G. (2000, c1959). The book of concord : The confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

I do think it is important that the faithful are instructed as to what the Mass truly is...Gottesdienst. God's service to us. No one should argue that but the implication that the term "Eucharist" is inappropriate, a term that has been used historically and one for which the use is satisfactorily explained and defended by the Lutheran Confessions, doesn't seem to be a faithful representation of the Lutheran position.

[Xpycoctomos]

Yeah, I think "Eucharist" has been used for the entire span of the Church's life to refer to the Lord's Supper. Christ broke the bread, GAVE THANKS... said "DO THIS in remembrance of me". This includes giving thanks. It is a Eucharist. The Church MUST give thanks to be the Church. For us (and I would guess for you as well) Thanksgiving to God is what completely identifies the CHurch. We are to always be Eucharistic. This isn't merely a nice virtue like patience... it is what defines us. Love can not exist without thanksgiving and vice versa. Fr. Alexander Schmemmen (an Orthodox priest) wrote a lot about this. This was one of his central themes and messages to his readers. I'lll have to look for some of his articles online (if anyone's even interested) although I think others here might be fammiliar with him and it may be more appropriate for members here to discern posting those links here as it may inappropriate for me to do so. I really think that a lot of what he writes can be applied to the Lutheran Church even if it is expressed in a more "eastern" flavor that is not so apparent in Lutheranism.

Interesting thread.

regarding post #5, I was always under the understanding that although it was most common in the ELCA to believe in Rela Presence, this was not necessary, so my question: while what the parish in question taught was offensive and wrong to you, are they technically within their doctrinal rights to teach this? (I know within LCMS and WELS they are not, I'm just asking about ELCA because it can be so different).

John

[MORTANIUS]

What are the views of the various Lutheran Groups on the Eucharist?

Here is an interesting passage from the Holy Gospels that clearly define Christian views of the Eucharist. Notice that prior to the actual last supper, Lord Jesus Christ explains the purpose of drinking his blood and eating his flesh.

From the Book of John we read (John 6:53 - 56)

Jesus said to them, "I am telling you the truth, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you will not have life in yourselves. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood, has eternal life, and I will raise him to life on the last day. For my flesh is the real food; my blood is the real drink. Whoever eats of my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me, and I live in them."

This passage shows us that the bread and wine are not simply an act of memory in Jesus Christ, but living spiritually in him, as He lives in us.

Some may still insist that Jesus only meant the Eucharist to be practiced in his memory alone, and that we are not spiritual rejuvinated by this act.
The above passage from the Holy Gospel of John shows us that the Eucharist is more than just a memory of the Lord. It is Life itself! This is how we view the Eucharist. I hope this has helped.