Lutherans and the Eucharist

[Ave Maria]

Do Lutherans believe in the real presence of the Eucharist?

 

[revjpw]

Do Lutherans believe in the real presence of the Eucharist?

Yes. Lutherans hold to the Scriptural teaching that in the Lord's Supper, we receive the very Body and Blood of Christ in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine, to eat and to drink as our Lord commands us to do.

We do not, however, teach as the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine cease to exist in the Sacrament. Neither do we teach that the Supper is a mere symbol or memorial.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes. Lutherans hold to the Scriptural teaching that in the Lord's Supper, we receive the very Body and Blood of Christ in, with, and under the elements of bread and wine, to eat and to drink as our Lord commands us to do.

We do not, however, teach as the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine cease to exist in the Sacrament. Neither do we teach that the Supper is a mere symbol or memorial.

Ah okay. Thank you for the answer.

 

[MORTANIUS]

We Lutherans view the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and believe the body and blood of Christ to be present throughout it.

Although the bread and the wine remain, we believe that we receive Christ in such communion in both the human and divine natures.

We view this sacrament as a vehilce of grace and not solely as a memorial of Christ.

All participate in such communion, as where at one time (which troubled the first Reformists) the Roman Catholic Church limited the blood/Wine to only clergy and only shared the bread/body of Jesus in communion with the lay people.

We participate in both.

 

[ctobola]

That's a great question.

The best way I've heard it explained is that we (Lutherans) believe the same things as the Roman Catholics, we just don't explain it.

In short, that's true... We believe that Christ is truly present in a genuine way, not just in spirit or in our memories.

A couple additional thoughts:

1. Almost all Christian traditions claim that they believe in the "Real Presence" -- even those that believe communion is a sort of "memorial service." The question is how they define "Real Presence."

2. Lutherans generally don't use the word "Eucharist" (Thanksgiving) to refer to communion, because it implies our response. We prefer to put the emphasis on Christ coming to us.

3. Those congregations that do use the word "Eucharist," tend to be those who feel that it's important to declare a connection with the Roman Catholic tradition. (We sometimes refer to this as the "Home to Rome" movement.)

4. Because Lutherans believe that Christ comes to us in communion, we do not believe he is trapped there. Outside of the communion service (where he promised to be present), the bread and wine are simply bread and wine.

Hope that clarifies! -Cloy

We Lutherans view the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and believe the body and blood of Christ to be present throughout it.

Although the bread and the wine remain, we believe that we receive Christ in such communion in both the human and divine natures.

We view this sacrament as a vehilce of grace and not solely as a memorial of Christ.

All participate in such communion, as where at one time (which troubled the first Reformists) the Roman Catholic Church limited the blood/Wine to only clergy and only shared the bread/body of Jesus in communion with the lay people.

We participate in both.

 

[MORTANIUS]

ctobola, I think I'm going to copy your Avatar lol

 

[SPALATIN]

That's a great question.

The best way I've heard it explained is that we (Lutherans) believe the same things as the Roman Catholics, we just don't explain it.

In short, that's true... We believe that Christ is truly present in a genuine way, not just in spirit or in our memories.

A couple additional thoughts:

1. Almost all Christian traditions claim that they believe in the "Real Presence" -- even those that believe communion is a sort of "memorial service." The question is how they define "Real Presence."

I don't know where you get your info here but I strongly disagree with you as I was a part of those that called it only a "memorial meal". They have no concept and reject any notion of real presence.

If you don't know something don't make it up.

2. Lutherans generally don't use the word "Eucharist" (Thanksgiving) to refer to communion, because it implies our response. We prefer to put the emphasis on Christ coming to us.

3. Those congregations that do use the word "Eucharist," tend to be those who feel that it's important to declare a connection with the Roman Catholic tradition. (We sometimes refer to this as the "Home to Rome" movement.)

In most of the Lutheran Churches I have been to we use the terms Eucharist and Communion interchangeably. Never heard of the "Home to Rome" movement. Even if I had I would rather be closer to Rome than where you are now.

4. Because Lutherans believe that Christ comes to us in communion, we do not believe he is trapped there. Outside of the communion service (where he promised to be present), the bread and wine are simply bread and wine.

Hope that clarifies! -Cloy

Again I disagree with you in your context. The Real Presence of Christ is in, with and under the bread and the wine. What do you do with the remainder of consecrated elements after the meal? They have to be properly stored separately from the unconsecrated elements. They can't be unconsecrated.

Cloy,

Here is where the synodical differences show the most. I think you need to go back to the confessions and better study the parts that speak of the Eucharist/Communion.

 

[RedneckAnglican]

ctobola, I think I'm going to copy your Avatar lol

me, too...wait... i kinda already have...

 

[Protoevangel]

Here you go...

Or: Try this


Oh yea, on topic:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What is the Sacrament of the Altar?[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Where is this written?[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
[/font]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 

[RedneckAnglican]

ah...my next tattoo...

 

[ctobola]

Scott,

You seem pretty contrary these days. Too much coffee?

Anyway, here are my responses...

I don't know where you get your info here but I strongly disagree with you as I was a part of those that called it only a "memorial meal". They have no concept and reject any notion of real presence.

If you don't know something don't make it up.

Not making anything up. I did a long research paper on this when I was in Bible College and I found that many Christian traditions believe in a "Real Presence," but they may define it very differently.

The congregation you attended may have believed that communion is just a memorial -- and they may have rejected the idea of the "Real Presence." That's fine, but it's just one congregation.

Although not an authoritative source, Wikipedia (and several other "dictionary" sites) offer this comment on Real Presence:

Some Reformed Christians dispute the meaning of "Real Presence" and insist that instead of Christ's body and blood coming down to inhabit the elements, the faithful are, via the Holy Spirit, brought to the right hand of the Father, where they feed on the risen, glorified Christ, partaking even of his physical nature in the supper.

Methodism has not issued a definitive statement regarding how the presence of Christ is experienced. While transubstantiation is rejected, the followers of John Wesley have typically affirmed that the grace of Christ is experienced via his real presence in the sacrament, but have allowed the details to remain a mystery.
​

As noted, the Methodists are one group that also claim the "Real Presence," which may not be exactly what we Lutherans have in mind. Here's a quote from a Feb. 19, 2002, press release from the United Methodist News Service regarding Lutheran/Methodist dialog:

Led by United Methodist Bishop Melvin Talbert..., he cited the issue of "real presence" in the Lord's Supper. An examination of the teachings of Martin Luther and John Wesley show that both denominations historically believe in the idea of real presence. The emphasis during communion is a bit different, according to Talbert, as Lutherans focus more strongly on relating to "the body and the blood" while United Methodists focus on the Holy Spirit​

.

Hope that clarifies things for you. I'm only saying that many Christian traditions use the term "Real Presence," but not all of them define it the same way.

No need to apologize for accusing me of fabricating information -- I already forgive you.

In most of the Lutheran Churches I have been to we use the terms Eucharist and Communion interchangeably.

The following quote is a nice summation of the commentary I've heard from quite a few Lutheran pastors who object to the use of the term "Eucharist." The quote is from the web site for the CrossAlone Lutheran congregations in the Minneapolis area (http://www.crossalone.us/wst_page8.html). They are part of the LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ), which is a group of ELCA congregations who have declared themselves "In Statu Confessionis" (e.g., "to claim publicly, within an ecclesial context, that an ecclesial entity [usually one’s own] has abandoned its scriptural and/or confessional basis by adopting heretical or heterdox views. See http://www.augsburgchurches.org/Library.htm).

The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, that is, a gift from God to us. It is not essentially an act or rite in which we give something to God. Therefore we do not use the term "Eucharist," which means "Thanksgiving." This term is commonly used by those who regard the sacrament as the church’s sacrificial offering, through the action of a sacramental priest, to God.​

In other words, the term Eucharist carries the Roman Catholic understanding of the Priest re-sacrificing Christ and offering Him to God as an expiation for our sins.

The site http://www.coomaraswamy-catholic-writings.com/MotherTheresa-PartII.htm features some interesting correspondence with Mother Theresa, including comments about how the Protestants are misusing the word Eucharist and taking it out if its Roman Catholic context.

Never heard of the "Home to Rome" movement. Even if I had I would rather be closer to Rome than where you are now.

Scott, don't ever argue from a position of ignorance. Searching for Lutheran and "Home to Rome" on Google resulted in 250 hits. The most prominent "Home to Romer" was Richard John Newhouse, a well know theologian who felt that the issues related to the Reformation had been largely addressed and so he turned in his Lutheran vestments and became a Roman Catholic priest.

The "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" (JDDJ), which was developed by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholics is another example of the "Home to Rome" movement (which does not reflect even the wishes of most ELCA Lutherans!)

The "Home to Rome" movement is indeed sad, because it flies in the face of the Lutheran understanding of the Church. The Church (capital C) is indeed catholic -- it transcends denominational boundries -- and unites all followers of Jesus Christ.

Again I disagree with you in your context. The Real Presence of Christ is in, with and under the bread and the wine. What do you do with the remainder of consecrated elements after the meal? They have to be properly stored separately from the unconsecrated elements. They can't be unconsecrated.

Well, if it's wafers they go back in the box. If it's real bread, one of the servers or the pastors take it home for Sunday dinner. The wine goes back into the fridge in the sacristy.

The consecration of the elements is done by Christ, who comes to us in the Communion service. To claim that he is trapped in the bread after communion is decidedly Roman Catholic, unLutheran and (I think) downright superstitious. That's why Lutheran churches do not typically have a "Tabernacle" in the altar where we put the "consecrated" bread and wine.

I don't know how familiar you are with the Roman Catholic tradition, but most RC sacristies have a special sink for washing the communion glasses. The drain water goes into a special soil pit, because the "blood of Christ" can't been poured down the sewer.

As Lutherans, we focus on Christ coming to us at HIS desire within the context of the Communion service. He promises to be with us in that context, but to assume that we have then captured Him in a piece of bread implies that He is no longer in control. I think you will find that in most Lutheran congregations (with the exception of a few old-school "High Church" settings), the idea of the "reserve host" (e.g., bread/wine that remains the body/blood outside of the Communion service) is not accepted.

It all comes down to the focus. As Lutherans, we focus on the fact that Christ comes to us. (If you went through Lutheran confirmation, you should have heard that about 3 million times.) That concept underpins our understanding of [infant] baptism (you don't have to choose God, He comes to you), confirmation (we're already Christians, we're just affirming what God did for us in baptism), and Communion -- it is Christ who comes to us. The act of consecration by the worship leader does nothing more than "consecrate" (i.e., those elements that have been selected as the host) -- it is Christ who changes those elements in the presence of his followers.

Excelsior! -Cloy

 

[VeryTiredGirl]

Here you go...

Or: Try this

I borrowed it too. Hope you don't mind.

 

[VeryTiredGirl]

Well, if it's wafers they go back in the box. If it's real bread, one of the servers or the pastors take it home for Sunday dinner. The wine goes back into the fridge in the sacristy.

The consecration of the elements is done by Christ, who comes to us in the Communion service. To claim that he is trapped in the bread after communion is decidedly Roman Catholic, unLutheran and (I think) downright superstitious. That's why Lutheran churches do not typically have a "Tabernacle" in the altar where we put the "consecrated" bread and wine.

I don't know how familiar you are with the Roman Catholic tradition, but most RC sacristies have a special sink for washing the communion glasses. The drain water goes into a special soil pit, because the "blood of Christ" can't been poured down the sewer.
Excelsior! -Cloy

Even within the Lutheran church, disposal of the Communion elements is done with a fair bit of dignity and respect.

I'm on Altar Guild at my church, and we have been taught there are three ways to properly dispose of the elements:

1. Consume them immediately. We rarely do this, as we tend to overestimate how much wine is needed, and even if several people got together to consume the leftover wine, they could get very drunk. Occasionally, if there's just a sip or two in the chalice, someone will finish it off. At our seminary, the students consume any leftover elements before cleaning up the altar.
   
2. Reuse it. At my church, we return unused wafers to a bag and pour back 'clean' wine (wine that has been in the chalice or individual cups) into the bottle, and then make sure those are the first elements used the following week
3. Return it to the earth. Some Lutheran congregations install the special sinks so that any wine poured down the sink will go directly into the ground, while others will pour their leftover wine onto some bushes or grass on the church's property. This is how we dispose of wine that has been in the chalice and touched human lips, and any broken or dropped wafers-wafers are buried in a flower garden and the wine is poured on the bushes in front of the church.

All three methods of disposing of Communion elements are described in the Altar Guild Manual from CPH. No matter what, the elements are returned to the sacristy after Communion, not left out to be 'adored' or anything else.

 

[revjpw]

Well, if it's wafers they go back in the box. If it's real bread, one of the servers or the pastors take it home for Sunday dinner. The wine goes back into the fridge in the sacristy.

The consecration of the elements is done by Christ, who comes to us in the Communion service. To claim that he is trapped in the bread after communion is decidedly Roman Catholic, unLutheran and (I think) downright superstitious. That's why Lutheran churches do not typically have a "Tabernacle" in the altar where we put the "consecrated" bread and wine.

I don't know how familiar you are with the Roman Catholic tradition, but most RC sacristies have a special sink for washing the communion glasses. The drain water goes into a special soil pit, because the "blood of Christ" can't been poured down the sewer.

As Lutherans, we focus on Christ coming to us at HIS desire within the context of the Communion service. He promises to be with us in that context, but to assume that we have then captured Him in a piece of bread implies that He is no longer in control. I think you will find that in most Lutheran congregations (with the exception of a few old-school "High Church" settings), the idea of the "reserve host" (e.g., bread/wine that remains the body/blood outside of the Communion service) is not accepted.

It all comes down to the focus. As Lutherans, we focus on the fact that Christ comes to us. (If you went through Lutheran confirmation, you should have heard that about 3 million times.) That concept underpins our understanding of [infant] baptism (you don't have to choose God, He comes to you), confirmation (we're already Christians, we're just affirming what God did for us in baptism), and Communion -- it is Christ who comes to us. The act of consecration by the worship leader does nothing more than "consecrate" (i.e., those elements that have been selected as the host) -- it is Christ who changes those elements in the presence of his followers.

Excelsior! -Cloy

I have bo idea what "Lutheran" denomination you come from, but absolutely nothing you say is in any way taught or practiced in any Lutheran tradition that I am aware of (save the ELCA for reasons that I will not get into here for obvious reasons).

There is no way of knowing when or even if the Real Presence of Christ ever stops being present in the elements consecrated during the Service of the Sacrament. For that reason, the consecrated elements are placed under special care following the service, not to bring any sort of reverence or adoration to the elements specifically, but to respect them as being used by Christ to give to us His very Body and Blood. We never put consecrated bread/the Body of Christ "back in the box" or "on the dinner table." Absolutely not! The consecrated wine/the Blood of Christ is never mixed with plain unconsecrated wine. They have been set apart (which by the way is the very definition of "holy") for use by Christ and therefore are to be used only for that which they have been set apart.

Lutheran churches certainly do have piscinas (sinks to drain into the ground) to properly dispose of any wine/Blood of Christ that is left over but cannot be stored (such as that left in the common cup). Also, those little individual cups are rinsed into it before they are thrown away (I prefer the permenant glass ones myself...if we have to use them at all) and the chalice cleaned in it so that the Blood of Christ does not go into the sewer or into the garbage.

The difference between the Lutherans and RCC has nothing to do with what you stated above. It has to do with adoration. Romanists worship and adore the elements. That is not what they are intended for. It is for this reason alone that many Lutheran churches do not have tabernacles on the altar, but many of them do.

The consecration by the "worship leader" as you put it is done in the stead and by the command and authority of Christ given to the one who is called and ordained to excercise that authority. The Pastor's consecration IS Christ's consecration. This, too, is very Lutheran.

Scott, don't ever argue from a position of ignorance.

You would do well to practice what you preach to Scott yourself!

 

[ctobola]

JPW,

I'd encourage you to think about the tone you're taking on these issues. It's decidedly not Christlike.

With regard to the issue of Christ's presence in the elements, that was an issue that actually arose between Phillip Melancthon and Luther. PM argued that it was heresy to say that Jesus was trapped in the elements beyond the scope of the Communion service; while Luther agreed, he worried that for the uneducated masses, a failure to properly respect the elements after communion would imply that they had never really BEEN the true body and blood of Christ.

An excellent article on this controvery is available online at:
http://www.lutheranquarterly.com/Articles/2001/1-Spring/LQ151_0224.pdf

I would also encourage you to read article seven of the Solid Declaration in the Formula of Concord. In case you don't have your copy handy, it reads thusly: (I've put the key phrases in bold.)

To maintain this true Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Supper and to obviate and eliminate many kinds of idolatrous misuse and perversion of this testament, the following useful rule and norm has been derived from the words of institution: Nothing has the character of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ, or apart from the divinely instituted action (that is, if one does not observe Christ’s institution as he ordained it, it is not sacrament). This rule dare not in any way be rejected, but it can and should be profitably urged and retained in the church of God.

In this context ‘‘use’’ or ‘‘action’’ does not primarily mean faith, or the oral
eating alone, but the entire external and visible action of the Supper as ordained by Christ: the consecration or words of institution, the distribution and reception, or the oral eating of the blessed bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ. Apart from this use it is not to be deemed a sacrament, as when in the papistic Mass the bread is not distributed but is offered up, or locked up, or carried about, or exposed for adoration, just as the baptismal water is no sacrament or Baptism if it should be used to consecrate bells, or to cure leprosy, or is otherwise exposed for adoration. It was against such papistic abuses that this rule was first formulated, and it was explained by Dr. Luther.​

The next portion was likely added to address Lutheran's concerns:

We must, however, also point out that the Sacramentarians dishonestly and maliciously pervert this useful and necessary rule and interpret it as referring only to the spiritual and internal use of faith in order to deny the true, essential presence and the oral eating of the body of Christ, in which here on earth both the worthy and the unworthy alike participate.
​

Excelsior! -Cloy

I have bo idea what "Lutheran" denomination you come from, but absolutely nothing you say is in any way taught or practiced in any Lutheran tradition that I am aware of (save the ELCA for reasons that I will not get into here for obvious reasons).

There is no way of knowing when or even if the Real Presence of Christ ever stops being present in the elements consecrated during the Service of the Sacrament. For that reason, the consecrated elements are placed under special care following the service, not to bring any sort of reverence or adoration to the elements specifically, but to respect them as being used by Christ to give to us His very Body and Blood. We never put consecrated bread/the Body of Christ "back in the box" or "on the dinner table." Absolutely not! The consecrated wine/the Blood of Christ is never mixed with plain unconsecrated wine. They have been set apart (which by the way is the very definition of "holy") for use by Christ and therefore are to be used only for that which they have been set apart.

Lutheran churches certainly do have piscinas (sinks to drain into the ground) to properly dispose of any wine/Blood of Christ that is left over but cannot be stored (such as that left in the common cup). Also, those little individual cups are rinsed into it before they are thrown away (I prefer the permenant glass ones myself...if we have to use them at all) and the chalice cleaned in it so that the Blood of Christ does not go into the sewer or into the garbage.

The difference between the Lutherans and RCC has nothing to do with what you stated above. It has to do with adoration. Romanists worship and adore the elements. That is not what they are intended for. It is for this reason alone that many Lutheran churches do not have tabernacles on the altar, but many of them do.

The consecration by the "worship leader" as you put it is done in the stead and by the command and authority of Christ given to the one who is called and ordained to excercise that authority. The Pastor's consecration IS Christ's consecration. This, too, is very Lutheran.



You would do well to practice what you preach to Scott yourself!

 

[Qoheleth]

"This bothers me very little, for I have often enough asserted that I do not argue whether the wine remains wine or not. It is enough for me that Christ’s blood is present; let it be with the wine as God wills. Sooner than have mere wine with the fanatics, I would agree with the pope that there is only blood". (Luther-AE 37 p. 317)

"It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is and is properly called the body and blood of Christ" (Luther-Large Catechism)

"The Sacrament of the Altar is pure Gospel, the Holy of Holies into which we may now enter. Through Baptism where we are washed,... through his body and blood we gain entrance into the Holy of Holies and is why we gather together as church".(Luther- AE 35 p. 106.)



These excerpts come from a 1527 writing of Luther entitled, "That These Words, 'This is My Body,' Still Stand Against the Fanatics."

"But the glory of God is precisely that for our sakes He comes down to the very depths, into human flesh, into the bread, into our mouth, our heart, our bosom; moreover, for our sakes He allows Himself to be treated ingloriously both on the cross and on the altar, as St. Paul says in I Corinthians 11 that some eat the bread in an unworthy manner." [ that Christ's flesh sits on the altar! This is not just a spiritual event happening in our hearts and minds.]

"Death indeed tried once, wanting to devour and digest Christ's flesh; but it could not. This flesh tore death's stomach and throat into more than a hundred thousand pieces, so that the teeth of the grave fell to pieces and turned to dust, and this flesh of Christ remains alive. For this food was too strong for death, and has devoured and digested it devourer. God is in this flesh. It is God's flesh, the Spirit's flesh. It is in God and God is in it. Therefore it lives and gives life to all who eat it, both to their bodies and to their souls."


Q

 

[ByzantineDixie]

The following quote is a nice summation of the commentary I've heard from quite a few Lutheran pastors who object to the use of the term "Eucharist."

...
In other words, the term Eucharist carries the Roman Catholic understanding of the Priest re-sacrificing Christ and offering Him to God as an expiation for our sins.

How could these be Lutheran pastors who say these things? Here is what Luther said:

We do accept it as a sacrament, a testament, the blessing (as in Latin), the eucharist (as in Greek), the Table of the Lord, the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Memorial, communion, or by whatever evangelical name you please, so long as it is not polluted by the name of sacrifice or work.
Luther, M. (1999, c1965). Vol. 53: Luther's works, vol. 53 : Liturgy and Hymns (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.



For reinforcement...read the Marburg Colloquy and see how often Luther used the term himself.

Well, if it's wafers they go back in the box. If it's real bread, one of the servers or the pastors take it home for Sunday dinner. The wine goes back into the fridge in the sacristy.

Lutherans???

Here is Luther's take (Reference: Logia, Epiphany, 1995):

Our third and final testimony to Luther's reverence before
the consecrated species takes us back to the close of the
Reformer's life:
During these last weeks of his life, the Reformer's counsel
was sought on a question of church discipline
involving a careless young clergyman, Adam Besserer,
the curate of Weida in the diocese of Naumburg. On
the Third Sunday in Advent 1545, Besserer had celebrated
the Holy Supper for seventeen communicants in
a small village church. When, at the distribution, he
came to the last communicant, the curate found that
one of the hosts that he had counted onto the paten
was missing. Besserer simply took an unconsecrated
host from the pyx and administered it to the waiting
communicant. After the service, the missing, consecrated
host was found, and Besserer thoughtlessly put it
in the pyx among the unconsecrated wafers. Such
behaviour inevitably came to the attention of the evangelical
bishop of Naumburg, Nicholas von Amsdorf,
who had Besserer placed under arrest pending advice
from Wittenberg. Meanwhile, the bishop, unable to
distinguish the one consecrated from the many unconsecrated
hosts in Besserer's pyx, had them all burned.
At Amsdorf's request, Luther gave a written opinion on
the case. Besserer, thinks the ailing Reformer, is guilty
not of mere "negligence, but of extraordinary wickedness.
. . . As a despiser of God and man he has dared
publicly to treat consecrated and unconsecrated hosts
alike. Therefore he must simply be expelled from our
churches. Let him go to his Zwinglians."

And Walther after that:

Should anything of the consecrated elements be left over,
the wine is to be drunk up—maybe in the sacristy—by
communicants at that particular celebration, by the lay
officers, or by the sacristan. Under no circumstances,
however, is consecrated to be mixed with unconsecrated
wine or in any way to be put to common use. Such wine
can be used if need be for sick Communions, even
though in this case it is to be reconsecrated.

Lutheran revisionism...this is exactly why Lutheranism isn't Lutheran any more.

 

[MORTANIUS]

How could these be Lutheran pastors who say these things? Here is what Luther said:

We do accept it as a sacrament, a testament, the blessing (as in Latin), the eucharist (as in Greek), the Table of the Lord, the Lord’s Supper, the Lord’s Memorial, communion, or by whatever evangelical name you please, so long as it is not polluted by the name of sacrifice or work.
Luther, M. (1999, c1965). Vol. 53: Luther's works, vol. 53 : Liturgy and Hymns (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.



For reinforcement...read the Marburg Colloquy and see how often Luther used the term himself.





Lutherans???

Here is Luther's take (Reference: Logia, Epiphany, 1995):

Our third and final testimony to Luther's reverence before
the consecrated species takes us back to the close of the
Reformer's life:
During these last weeks of his life, the Reformer's counsel
was sought on a question of church discipline
involving a careless young clergyman, Adam Besserer,
the curate of Weida in the diocese of Naumburg. On
the Third Sunday in Advent 1545, Besserer had celebrated
the Holy Supper for seventeen communicants in
a small village church. When, at the distribution, he
came to the last communicant, the curate found that
one of the hosts that he had counted onto the paten
was missing. Besserer simply took an unconsecrated
host from the pyx and administered it to the waiting
communicant. After the service, the missing, consecrated
host was found, and Besserer thoughtlessly put it
in the pyx among the unconsecrated wafers. Such
behaviour inevitably came to the attention of the evangelical
bishop of Naumburg, Nicholas von Amsdorf,
who had Besserer placed under arrest pending advice
from Wittenberg. Meanwhile, the bishop, unable to
distinguish the one consecrated from the many unconsecrated
hosts in Besserer's pyx, had them all burned.
At Amsdorf's request, Luther gave a written opinion on
the case. Besserer, thinks the ailing Reformer, is guilty
not of mere "negligence, but of extraordinary wickedness.
. . . As a despiser of God and man he has dared
publicly to treat consecrated and unconsecrated hosts
alike. Therefore he must simply be expelled from our
churches. Let him go to his Zwinglians."

And Walther after that:

Should anything of the consecrated elements be left over,
the wine is to be drunk up—maybe in the sacristy—by
communicants at that particular celebration, by the lay
officers, or by the sacristan. Under no circumstances,
however, is consecrated to be mixed with unconsecrated
wine or in any way to be put to common use. Such wine
can be used if need be for sick Communions, even
though in this case it is to be reconsecrated.

Lutheran revisionism...this is exactly why Lutheranism isn't Lutheran any more.

Bravo LuthersRose

 

[SPALATIN]

Leave it to Rose to call a spade a spade.

 

[revjpw]

Well, if it's wafers they go back in the box. If it's real bread, one of the servers or the pastors take it home for Sunday dinner. The wine goes back into the fridge in the sacristy.

Lutherans???

No Lutherans I know!