A question on The Real Presence.

[St_Joseph_Cupertino]

Good day my Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

I have a question, borne out of ignorance, I guess.

Please don't take offence, I just want to understand and thought how better to learn than to ask. :)

I have learnt that Lutherans also proclaim to have the the Real Presence.

Can someone please explain to me how this happens? What happens during the Mass / service to make Jesus present, and also, if I may ask, by what authority do you have this?

I'm not that clued-up on things, I know that there is a dispute between RC and Anglicans whether or not the Anglican's claim to the Real Presence is valid, but I am very interested to learn about the Lutheran side of this, and more specific the LCMS.

Any explanations would be greatly appreciated!

In Christ.

St. Joe,

[DaRev]

The proclamation of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments are part of the Office of the Keys. The responsibilities of the Keys are carried out by one who is called by God through the congregation and ordained to carry out those responsibilities. The authority to carry out those functions come from God through Christ.

In the Lord's Supper, the very body and blood of Christ is present in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine as per the words of Christ. As to when the presence occurs during the Mass is a mystery. All we can say is that it occurs between the reciting of Christ's words in the Verba and the reception of the Sacrament. The power of this 'Sacramental Union' lies in the words of Christ spoken by the one who is authorized by Christ (called and ordained) to administer His supper.

The Lutheran Church rejects the doctrine of "Transubstantiation". Scripture clearly tells us that what is received in the Sacrament is both bread and wine AND the very body and blood of Christ. Lutherans also reject the doctrine of "Consubstantiation" as a means of explaining the Real Presence, which Scripture does not explain. The term used by the Lutheran Confessions is "Sacramental Union".

[St_Joseph_Cupertino]

Thank you DaRev for the clear and precise answer! :)

That actually makes sense.

In Christ.

[BabyLutheran]

I have always found it odd that we humans seem to have a need to find a logical explanation for things we cannot comprehend. I just accept that it happens!

Not making light of any beliefs, just my observation.

[St_Joseph_Cupertino]

I have always found it odd that we humans seem to have a need to find a logical explanation for things we cannot comprehend. I just accept that it happens!
Not making light of any beliefs, just my observation.

Hi there!

No offence taken :)

You are right, of course, most humans have a very strong need to understand things....even spiritual things.

I, for one, am such a person :) I need to examine and scrutinize things untill it makes sense to me. If it doesn't make sense, that's fine....but sometimes my understanding differs from the one being taught, and for the life of me I can't understand how they reach certain conclusions...that's a tough situation to be in.....

That has not happened to me with any Lutheran teachings, I was just curious, really.

I think you are lucky that you can just accept and believe. Good for you! :)

[DaRev]

I have always found it odd that we humans seem to have a need to find a logical explanation for things we cannot comprehend. I just accept that it happens!

Not making light of any beliefs, just my observation.

It's the result of human reason which needs such explanations in order to comprehend. This is why the Reformed reject the Real Presence. They rely on human reason as a means of Biblical interpretation and thus such mysteries do not make sense to them, so they simply reject it.

[St_Joseph_Cupertino]

It's the result of human reason which needs such explanations in order to comprehend. This is why the Reformed reject the Real Presence. They rely on human reason as a means of Biblical interpretation and thus such mysteries do not make sense to them, so they simply reject it.

True...and isn't it ironic that they reject teachigns sch as these, even though it clearly states it as such in Scripture?

One of the Church Father said something like if Christ said "This is My Body", who are we to doubt that?

Very true words, straight from Scripture, and yet so many Sola Scripture denominations reject that teaching....ironic :)

[BabyLutheran]

That is so ironic, they take so much of the figurative language literally, and yet, the actual words of Christ himself are taken figuratively.

Go figure (ative)! lol

BTW, I do like to figure stuff out too, but on the Eucharist, it is just so black and white to me, I just accept it.

[DaRev]

One of the Church Father said something like if Christ said "This is My Body", who are we to doubt that?

Martin Luther said something very similar.

"But we want to, and should, simply stand by Christ's words. ...Christ does not say: This signifies My body but This is My body."

[St_Joseph_Cupertino]

Martin Luther said something very similar.

"But we want to, and should, simply stand by Christ's words. ...Christ does not say: This signifies My body but This is My body."

Nicely Said.

[RevCowboy]

It's the result of human reason which needs such explanations in order to comprehend. This is why the Reformed reject the Real Presence. They rely on human reason as a means of Biblical interpretation and thus such mysteries do not make sense to them, so they simply reject it.

Just to add my church nerd two cents to Da Rev's excellent and precise answers.

Specifically the reformers reject the scholastic (Theology of Thomas Aquinas) claims of substantiation, whether trans or con. The philosophical understanding of "substance" is that it is empirical. For example, in transubstantiation the bread and wine is claimed to become the empirical or scientific body and blood of Christ, even though we experience it bread and wine. The reformers criticism of this view is that is removes the mystery of God's action in the Eucharist.

So the reformers problem with reason is specifically in regards to the Thomistic scholasticism that it preferred philosophical inquiry over scripture. Scholastic scholars were encouraged to memorize Thomas's work, while simply reading the Bible was a secondary priority.


Another important distinction to make between the Lutheran and Roman understandings of the real presence is the difference in our understanding of ordination.

Both Romans and Lutherans believe in an ontological change experienced in Baptism. We are infused with the Holy Spirit and made a new creation, a New Adam.

Romans also believe in a ontological change in ordination. Through the laying on of hands in apostolic succession, the priest is changed on a "being" level. The priest is given the ability to literally change bread and wine into body and blood.

Lutherans don't believe ordination is ontological changed for two reasons. The entirety of Christian calling is found in baptism and Christ is the one who makes himself truly present in the bread and wine, however it happens, not the pastor. Ordination is a "setting apart" for ministry, how all Christians are called to be a a part of all aspects of ministry through their baptism. Being part includes being in the congregation. The distinction between clergy and ordained is not in their ontology but in the calling of the pastor to the public face and agent of the ministry of a certain congregation.

Okay... enough church nerdery for this post.;)

[Edial]

Martin Luther said something very similar.

"But we want to, and should, simply stand by Christ's words. ...Christ does not say: This signifies My body but This is My body."
Interesting.

I thought that symbolic understanding came with the Reformers.
Why would Luther state it in such a way?
Were there people that believed it to be symbolic?

Also, do you have the references for this quote?

Thanks,
Ed

[DaRev]

Interesting.

I thought that symbolic understanding came with the Reformers.
Why would Luther state it in such a way?
Were there people that believed it to be symbolic?

Also, do you have the references for this quote?

Thanks,
Ed

The symbolic understanding came from the likes of Zwingli and Calvin. Luther staunchly defended the real presence. The quote can be found in the book "What Luther Says". It comes from one of the volumes of Luther's Works, but I don't have the book in front of me at the moment so I don't know which volume.

[filosofer]

Or better yet, read This Is My Body which deals with the 1529 Marburg colloquy. That shows clearly Zwingli's approach to the Lord's Supper.

Zwingli: "It doesn't make sense"
Luther: "But the text says"
Zwingli: But it only makes sense if the word 'is' means 'signify'"
Luther: "But the text says"



That is filosofer's rendition of the highlights.

See Clinton had a spiritual forefather on the definition of "is" (namely Zwingli). :D

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Good day my Brothers and Sisters in Christ.

I have a question, borne out of ignorance, I guess.

Please don't take offence, I just want to understand and thought how better to learn than to ask. :)

I have learnt that Lutherans also proclaim to have the the Real Presence.

Can someone please explain to me how this happens? What happens during the Mass / service to make Jesus present, and also, if I may ask, by what authority do you have this?

I'm not that clued-up on things, I know that there is a dispute between RC and Anglicans whether or not the Anglican's claim to the Real Presence is valid, but I am very interested to learn about the Lutheran side of this, and more specific the LCMS.

Any explanations would be greatly appreciated!

In Christ.

St. Joe,



My understanding.... ;)


Of course, Lutherans begin with Scripture:

Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom" (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


1 Corinthians 11:23-29

The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed 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 also the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of 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 will be 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 or drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself."


Now, here's the Lutheran position:

"Is" = is. Each time.
"Bread" = bread. Each time.
"Wine" "cup" "fruit of the vine" = wine. Each time.
"Body" = body. Each time.
"Blood" = blood. Each time.

All the questions that are likely springing to your mind are issues we leave to mysery....



Some thoughts.....


1. Lutherans are comfortable with some of the ECF's use of "become" since that does not imply any denial of any reality; indeed the consecration, the Eucharist DOES "become" what was not before. We are also comfortble with "change" since again that doesn't deny the words of the text. If I change my shirt, the old shirt doesn't cease to exist except as an Aristotelian Accident, nor do the molecules of such transubstantiate into the molecules of the new shirt via some medieval alchemy. Lutherans also speak of the Eucharist as "is." When the pastor places the host in my mouth, his words are: "Josiah, this IS the Body of Christ." Because it IS. But that doesn't deny that it is ALSO bread. When Thomas said of Jesus, "My Lord and my God," that doesn't mean that he was ONLY God and His "humanity" was but an Aristotelian Accident (heresy, you know, lol).


2. While Luther in his Small Catechism used the (unfortunate) language of "in, with and under," this should not be confused with the Catholic Scholasticism theory of Consubstantiation. Luther was (inadequately) affirming that this IS the literal, real, physical, material, substantial prsence of Christ - without denying the reality of the bread and wine. Luther, I think, was actually trying to AVOID all the medieval Catholic Scholasticism's obsession over the "physics" here.



3. I think that Catholics and Lutherans completely agree - as far as Lutherans go (which is as far as it went until 1215). As is so often the case, Catholics just go MUCH FURTHER. We completely agree with the RCC's embrace of His Presence in the Holy Eucharist, we just don't agree with the complex Aristotelian dogma that denies the presence of the bread and wine (in fact, we are apt to think that issue kinda moot - not worthy of a new, divisive, distinctive DOGMA).



I hope that helps.



Pax!




- Josiah




.

[seajoy]

Zwingli: "It doesn't make sense"
Luther: "But the text says"
Zwingli: But it only makes sense if it the word is 'signify'"
Luther: "But the text says"


Says a lot, filo. :)

[RevCowboy]

Matthew 26:26-29

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat, this is my body.' And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying, 'Drink of it all of you, for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom" (see also Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20)


Now, here's the Lutheran position:

"Is" = is. Each time.
"Bread" = bread. Each time.
"Wine" "cup" "fruit of the vine" = wine. Each time.
"Body" = body. Each time.
"Blood" = blood. Each time.

[/URL]

The strongest evidence is that the Greek contains the verb [URL="http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%E1%BC%90%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BD&root=%CE%B5%E1%BC%B0%CE%BC%E1%BD%B7&number=616125"]ἐστιν (http://www.zhubert.com/word?word=%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%85&root=%E1%BC%90%CE%B3%E1%BD%BD&number=616128) or Estin (to be). Normally the verb estin is assumed in Greek and not written in the text. The fact that estin is explicitly used indicates that when the gospel writers recorded Jesus' aramaic words into Greek that the presence of the verb was significant. Jesus said, "This Is My Body" and this probably sounded strange to the hearers however it was what Jesus said and therefore they made sure to translate it accurately into Greek.

Thus in literary terms, the presence of estin also indicates that the Greek cannot mean anything other than "This is my body". "This signifies my body" is not a literary possibility.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hi St. Joe, It's nice to see another Canadian here!

Martin Luther said something very similar.

"But we want to, and should, simply stand by Christ's words. ...Christ does not say: This signifies My body but This is My body."

I believe Luther also said with regard to the real preasence "It is what it is."

I need to examine and scrutinize things untill it makes sense to me. I think you are lucky that you can just accept and believe. Good for you!

Joe, It's not "luck", true faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, just ask and you will receive! "By grace are ye saved through faith..." Ephesians 2:8,9.

Mark

[St_Joseph_Cupertino]

Hi St. Joe, It's nice to see another Canadian here!

Joe, It's not "luck", true faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, just ask and you will receive! "By grace are ye saved..." Ephesians 2:8,9.

Mark

Yeah, you too! How is it going, eh? ;)

Thanks for pointing that out, you are right of course, it's not luck, as much as a blessing and a Gift.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Yeah, you too! How is it going, eh? ;)

Thanks for pointing that out, you are right of course, it's not luck, as much as a blessing and a Gift.

:thumbsup:From one hoser to another, don't know where you are located, but here in Southern Ontario it is cold enough to freeze the knots off a blue spruce!

Mark:cool:

[synger]

For the Reformed view, see the Westminster Confession of faith (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXIX.html). They were very concerned with the Roman practice of adoration of the elements, and saw it as idolatory. They also rejected the idea that Christ was "re-sacrificed" at every Mass.

So they went too far toward symbolic.

[DaRev]

For the Reformed view, see the Westminster Confession of faith (http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_XXIX.html). They were very concerned with the Roman practice of adoration of the elements, and saw it as idolatory. They also rejected the idea that Christ was "re-sacrificed" at every Mass.

In these two points Lutherans agree.


St. Joe (nice name, BTW ;)),

Here's a link to some reading concerning the Lutheran view of the Sacrament.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.html#VII.%20The%20Lord's%20Supper

[St_Joseph_Cupertino]

Hi there!

Thanks for the link, I'll be sure to read it.
I have another question that I want to post, but I'll do that in a new thread to keep things accurate and seperate.