Question for Lutherans on the Eucharist.

[rakovsky]

Thank you for your insight on the EO view.

I can assert that, at least as of the 1990s when I was in Lutheran seminary (ELCA), the professors there had no problem accepting the term "consubstantiation." Yes, we know Luther (and Zwingli) both hated the term, but as you say, it fits.

I can't answer to what LCMS, WELS, or other alphabet-soup Lutherans may do, let alone Evangelische/Lutherans in other countries.

Thank you again for your EO education. I am fascinated by the Eastern churches.

With the LCMS, they have the classical Lutheran idea of the Eucharist from before they split from the ELCA. IIRC, the LCMS still has "closed communion" like the Lutherans did maybe 200 years ago. Since the Lutheran precise definition of Consubstantiation is unique, I am not sure offhand if they would have allowed any non-Lutherans to commune 200 years ago.

Sure, the Eastern Churches are a fascinating world of what Christianity was like in the first few centuries AD. The Protestant goal has often been expressed as returning to the way Christianity was in the time of the apostles, but what they did to a big extent was theorize that the early Church was the way that the Protestants were. So for instance, Calvinists rejected the objective Real Presence because they found it "ridiculous", and so they theorized that the Church in the time of the apostles rejected it too. Their method was not actually to open the Bible Plus the Christian writings of the first few centuries AD and then follow what those writings described.

In some ways the EO Church is like the Protestants, in other ways it's like the RCs, and in still other ways it's like neither. One way that it's like the Protestants is that it doesn't have the Papacy or the idea of the "infallibility" of the Magisterium. One way that it seems different from both is that it doesn't necessarily follow the Augustinian tradition and it also has more openness to a plurality of views on different topics, such as the nature of the Eucharistic change. The Protestant and RC Churches seem to treat major Augustinian ideas like the transmission of Original Sin as dogmatic, or at least as axiomatic.

 

[Our Lord's God]

"Our Lord's God" and "Bonnie" have gone back and forth a bit. I would like to try to answer "Our Lord's God"'s question.

Initially, OLG said:


This is incorrect. Lutherans take Jesus' words "This is my body" to mean "This is my body." They believe that Jesus' body IS there, in, with, and under the earthly elements of bread and wine.

Which is a bunch of meaningless babble meaning he is not the bread but with the bread.

This had been stated several times earlier in this thread, so I think Bonnie was wondering why you said Lutherans believed Jesus' body was not present, when several Lutherans pointed out that Brother Martin specifically said it WAS present.

It has nothing to do with "presence."

It has do do with possession. Those who eat of it are HIS true body, the one body of Christ.

You may be confused, because many other protestant denominations -- Methodists, Presbyterians, and I think pretty much everyone else except for Anglicans (and we can discuss them in a different thread, perhaps) -- believe that it's more of a symbolic presence, or that Jesus is just there in the same way Jesus is always present with everyone, like, there is no place you can go where God can't get, yada yada, so of course Jesus would be at the communion table, but that's less literal than what Lutherans believe. We believe it is Jesus' actual body and blood.

We differ slightly from the Roman Catholic (and I believe also Orthodox) view, in that we believe it is ALSO bread and wine. Body, blood, bread, wine, it's all in there.

RCCs believe that it is no longer bread and wine, but that it "magically" becomes body and blood only. The term "hocus pocus" in fact comes from the mass, "hoc es corpus," this is the body. One minute it's bread and wine, but you say a few words, ring a few bells, and presto-chango, it's no longer bread and wine, but now it's 100% certified Jesus.

The $100 theological word for what Catholics believe is "transubstantiation" -- "trans" indicating a change from one thing into something else. The $100 word for what Lutherans believe is "consubstantiation" -- "con" meaning "with." As in Via Con Carne. Go with meat. Wait. That's not it.

Anyway, I hope that explains it to both parties sufficiently.

FWIW, and WRT the whole "mystery" thing, I've never had a problem believing that bread and wine can be the actual body and blood of Jesus.

However, it does challenge my faith just a little too much to believe that those dang plastic wafers can possibly be bread. That much faith I just can't muster.

 

[HillsboroMom]

With the LCMS, they have the classical Lutheran idea of the Eucharist from before they split from the ELCA.

I loved most of your post. However, I must respond to this one sentence.

The LCMS never "split" from the ELCA. The LCMS existed long before the ELCA did.

In the earliest years of the US, every group of immigrants had their own Lutheran body. There were the Finnish Lutherans, the Swedish Lutherans, the Norwegian Lutherans, and so on. As more and more immigrants became more "American" and less of their old country language and culture, many of these groups started merging.

The LCMS was primarily German-Lutherans, and was more conservative than many of their other alphabet soup cousins. During the 1970s, a small band of pastors and professors split from the LCMS to form the AELC. At that point, the biggest other Lutheran bodies were the LCA (primarily Swedish, although also others) and the ALC (primarily Norwegian). The AELC began talks with those two bodies, and merged officially in 1986 (?) to form the ELCA. I remember this vividly because I went to seminary just a few years later, and many of my classmates were in school during the merger.

A few years ago, some churches separated from the ELCA, claiming it was getting too liberal, and rather than join LCMS, they formed their own group, which I found disappointing. I thought they should have joined the LCMS, since it already existed. But no one asked me! LOL.

Anyway, I can go on for days and days about Lutheranism in the US.

 

[HillsboroMom]

Which is a bunch of meaningless babble ....

I'm sorry you don't understand some of the shortest words in the English language. You might consider enrolling in a class for "English as a Second Language" at your local community college. This may help you understand these posts that are very clear, and not meaningless babble at all to people who are fluent in English.

 

[Our Lord's God]

I'm sorry you don't understand some of the shortest words in the English language. You might consider enrolling in a class for "English as a Second Language" at your local community college. This may help you understand these posts that are very clear, and not meaningless babble at all to people who are fluent in English.

Please do explain the difference between "in", "under" and "with."

Have fun with that.

 

[BJ Bear]

BJ,
I remember reading Luther's debate with a theologian who denied the objective Presence in the Eucharist. It might have been Calvin. I remember reading Luther's argument in that document that Christ was present in the Eucharist in the same mode that he passed through the tomb stone and the locked house's door. I would have to dig up the document.

The LCMS FAQ quotes the Formula of Concord as using the kind of words that I used:

Doctrine - Frequently Asked Questions - The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Frequently asked questions about LCMS doctrine.

www.lcms.org

I think we are differing on the context of those. I don't read them as a clearly defined limiting affirmative statement for several reasons. One is the context of the statement in the Thorough Declaration of the Formula Concord. It continues, "Now, whether God has and knows still more modes in which Christ’s body is anywhere, I did not intend to deny herewith, but to indicate what awkward dolts our fanatics are, that they concede to the body of Christ no more than the first, comprehensible mode; although they cannot even prove that to be conflicting with our meaning. For in no way will I deny that the power of God may accomplish this much that a body might be in many places at the same time, even in a bodily, comprehensible way. For who will prove that this is impossible with God? Who has seen an end to His power? The fanatics indeed think thus: God cannot do it. But who will believe their thinking? With what do they make such thinking sure? Thus far Luther." https://boc.confident.faith/sd-vii-0103

A second reason is that the modes of presence of the sophists falls into the category of words which are not the intended point being made as in the following except. "But we believe precisely that his body is present, as his words say and indicate: This is my body. When the fathers and we occasionally say, Christ's body is in the bread, we do so quite simply because by our faith we wish to confess that Christ's body is present. Otherwise we may well allow it to be said that it is in the bread, it is the bread, it is where the bread is, or whatever you wish. Over words we do not wish to argue, just so the meaning is retained that it is not mere bread that we eat in Christ's Supper, but the body of Christ." That These Words of Christ, "This is my body," etc, Still Stand Firm Against The Fanatics, LW, P65, V37, (c)FP

And so forth.

 

[HillsboroMom]

Please do explain the difference between "in", "under" and "with."

Have fun with that.

I'll try, but I'm a terrible artist.

Fig. 1: The circle is IN the box:
___
|_o_|


Fig. 2: The circle is UNDER the box:
___
|__|
o

Fig. 3: The circle is WITH the box:
___
|__| o

Now, imagine that the circle is simultaneously all three of these things. At the same time.

Now, if you think that something can't be WITH something at the same time as being THE SAME THING as that thing, then I'm assuming you consider the Gospel of John to be nonsense, since he says, "The Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God."

This is why we call it a "mystery."

If you reject that something can be three things at the same time but only one thing, then you also reject the Trinity. And pretty much every orthodox doctrine of Christianity. (Dual nature of Christ, omnipresence, etc.)

As a non-Calvinist, I believe you have the right to be wrong. But you're going to have a problem with any Christian church if you reject Jesus.

 

[rakovsky]

I loved most of your post. However, I must respond to this one sentence.

The LCMS never "split" from the ELCA. The LCMS existed long before the ELCA did.

Good background discussion by you.

 

[rakovsky]

I think we are differing on the context of those. I don't read them as a clearly defined limiting affirmative statement for several reasons. One is the context of the statement in the Thorough Declaration of the Formula Concord. It continues, "Now, whether God has and knows still more modes in which Christ’s body is anywhere, I did not intend to deny herewith, but to indicate what awkward dolts our fanatics are, that they concede to the body of Christ no more than the first, comprehensible mode; although they cannot even prove that to be conflicting with our meaning. For in no way will I deny that the power of God may accomplish this much that a body might be in many places at the same time, even in a bodily, comprehensible way. For who will prove that this is impossible with God? Who has seen an end to His power? The fanatics indeed think thus: God cannot do it. But who will believe their thinking? With what do they make such thinking sure? Thus far Luther." https://boc.confident.faith/sd-vii-0103

Your citation, the Book of Concord, includes a part that is explicit on the point of the second, spiritual mode being the one for Christ's body's Presence in the Last Supper's elements:

Secondly, the incomprehensible, spiritual mode, according to which He neither occupies nor vacates space, but penetrates all creatures wherever He pleases [according to His most free will]; as, to make an imperfect comparison, my sight penetrates and is in air, light, or water, and does not occupy or vacate space; as a sound or tone penetrates and is in air or water or board and wall, and also does not occupy or vacate space; likewise, as light and heat penetrate and are in air, water, glass, crystal, and the like, and also do not vacate or occupy space; and much more of the like [many comparisons of this matter could be adduced]. This mode He used when He rose from the closed [and sealed] sepulcher, and passed through the closed door [to His disciples], and in the bread and wine in the Holy Supper, and, as it is believed, when He was born of His mother [the most holy Virgin Mary].​

​

​

 

[rakovsky]

I'll try,

Now, if you think that something can't be WITH something at the same time as being THE SAME THING as that thing, then I'm assuming you consider the Gospel of John to be nonsense, since he says, "The Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God."

Good example.

 

[Our Lord's God]

I'll try, but I'm a terrible artist.

Fig. 1: The circle is IN the box:
___
|_o_|


Fig. 2: The circle is UNDER the box:
___
|__|
o

Fig. 3: The circle is WITH the box:
___
|__| o

Now, imagine that the circle is simultaneously all three of these things. At the same time.

Now, if you think that something can't be WITH something at the same time as being THE SAME THING as that thing, then I'm assuming you consider the Gospel of John to be nonsense, since he says, "The Word was WITH God and the Word WAS God."

This is why we call it a "mystery."

If you reject that something can be three things at the same time but only one thing, then you also reject the Trinity. And pretty much every orthodox doctrine of Christianity. (Dual nature of Christ, omnipresence, etc.)

As a non-Calvinist, I believe you have the right to be wrong. But you're going to have a problem with any Christian church if you reject Jesus.

By moving the circle to the side of the box did it then become WITH the box or was it WITH the box when it was UNDER the box?

 

[rakovsky]

By moving the circle to the side of the box did it then become WITH the box or was it WITH the box when it was UNDER the box?

OLG, your arguments remind me of Calvin's idea that it was impossible due to natural, physical reasons for Christ to be in the bread. The main problem with his line of thinking was his premise that Jesus' body has to follow modern materialistic rules, because the Bible describes Jesus' body doing all kinds of things that violate physical laws like going through walls and Ascending to heaven.

Regards.

 

[BJ Bear]

Well, you told me to check it, so I cited the correction.

The Orthodox church does not have a dogmatic position on whether the RC or Lutheran position is right, but the 17th century "Local Council" of Jerusalem rejected the Lutheran view. That council would hold as a non-infallible authority for the EOs in what is today Israel, Palestine, Jordan, and the Sinai.

The most important practical idea that the Biblical writers seemed to want to convey was that Jesus' body is actually on the altar table. In my reading of John 6, Jesus says that the faithful need to "chew" his body and it says that some left Christianity over this issue. If Jesus just wanted to say that they only needed to "eat" it in some allegorical way like the Calvinists claimed, then it seems that He would have cleared up that he meant it only allegorically instead of chewing on Jesus' body ending up being some kind of "faith test." I should note that in contrast to my understanding of John 6, which can be found in EO interpretations of that chapter, Augustine considered John 6 to be referring to a non-physical spiritual "eating", and Luther, being in the Augustinian Tradition, followed Augustine on this. But despite their interpretation of John 6, they still taught the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The issues in John 6 are one of about 10 reasons that I found why the Bible writers meant to convey the objective Presence. I am having trouble finding my list that I put on https://www.christianforums.com

If we are going to treat the Bible as literature and use literary analysis to understand the meaning that its writers saw in its words, then when Jesus talked about eating his "flesh" in John 6, a consistent reading of the chapter suggests that Jesus was referring to his literal "flesh" there. The chapter includes Jesus' words:

The term "flesh" in verse 51 refers to his actual flesh, and if as a matter of interpretation this term is to be used consistently, then in verse 53 it again refers to his actual flesh. So in that chapter, Jesus was not just saying that they will need to eat his allegorical flesh or something like that. He was referring to his actual flesh.

Also in John 6, Jesus says not only eat (phagon), but also chew (trogon) his flesh, and the only other place John's gospel uses "chew" (trogon) is John 13, where it says Judas "chews" his" bread" at the last supper. So when Jesus says that they will need to both "eat" and "chew" His flesh, literary analysis suggests that he is referring to actual chewing with the physical mouth, and not just some kind of purely spiritual or "metaphorical eating."

I remember Jeremias II of Constantinople but not a 17th century council or synod of Jerusalem. I did find a link to one regarding Calvinism in 1672. Do you have a link that can be investigated?

Since the EC, RC, EO, and OO all agree on the Real Prescence what is there to decide? We use the prepositions in the same way as they have been used throughout church history.

Interesting take on John 6.

 

[rakovsky]

I remember Jeremias II of Constantinople but not a 17th century council or synod of Jerusalem. I did find a link to one regarding Calvinism in 1672. Do you have a link that can be investigated?

The Synod of Jerusalem was called in 1672 by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem. It's a local council, so it's not infallible, and strictly speaking it only applies to the territory of his Patriarchate, ie. Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Sinai. But it is still significant for Orthodoxy as those theologians' POV on the topic. In Decree 17, the Synod denied that Christ's real presence in the Eucharist was

• by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}
• 
  
• Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Source: http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

 

[rakovsky]

Since the EC, RC, EO, and OO all agree on the Real Prescence what is there to decide? We use the prepositions in the same way as they have been used throughout church history.

I sympathize with your answer above, because the EO Church doesn't have a dogmatic stance on whether the Lutheran or RC position is right. The RCs and Lutherans seem dogmatic in their rejection of eachothers' views.
What does EC stand for?

 

[HillsboroMom]

What does EC stand for?

I wonder if he means Episcopal Church? (which would be odd, because everywhere else besides the US we say "Anglican," but who knows?)

Or maybe Evangelical Church? Which is how the Lutheran Church is known in most European countries? Maybe?

 

[HillsboroMom]

By moving the circle to the side of the box did it then become WITH the box or was it WITH the box when it was UNDER the box?

Yes.

 

[Nic]

I wonder if he means Episcopal Church? (which would be odd, because everywhere else besides the US we say "Anglican," but who knows?)

Or maybe Evangelical Church? Which is how the Lutheran Church is known in most European countries? Maybe?

EC likely means Eastern [Rite] Catholics which volitionally submit to the Western Church. 🙂

 

[Nic]

EC likely means Eastern [Rite] Catholics which volitionally submit to the Western Church. 🙂

I suppose an alternative rendering could be Evangelical [Lutheran] Church.

 

[HillsboroMom]

I suppose an alternative rendering could be Evangelical [Lutheran] Church.

I was thinking that as a possibility. But your "Eastern Church" could be, too. Could be a lot of thing....

Entertaining Cuttlefish
Extraordinary Cacti
Eagle-eyed Cookies

Who knows in this day and age.