Starting a thread on the Lord's Supper for Catholics to read...

Consider Abraham's faith, childlike faith. Initially, his faith wasn't exactly childlike. He believed God, but still listened to the counsel of his wife.

Later, after Isaac was born, God asked hin to sacrifice his son. Even though it was a tough ask [edited to add: Please forgive the slang, a tell isn't a command in slang.], it was against the law of God, thou shalt not kill (Gen 9:6), and it was against the promise, or Gospel, the everlasting covenant would be with Isaac and his seed, Abraham was still willing to sacrifuce him. And so God said, now I know you fear me..., Gen 22:12. (The preceding was based on an example of faith from Scripture found in The Lord's Supper, written by Martin Chemnitz, (c)CPH.)

The point being that Abraham's faith didn't allow him to look for a figure of speech in God's:word where there clearly was not one.

In the same way, the Christian faith doesn't allow the Christian to look for a figure of speech in the words of God, the words of institution because there is clearly no figure of speech in, Christ blessed the bread, took the bread and broke it, and said, "Take and eat. This is my body given for you...."

The Christian knows this by answering some simple questions. For example, what were the disciples to take and eat? Answer: the bread which Christ blessed and broke.

What does the Lord say this bread is? It is His body which is given for them. It works out in the same way with regard to the cup, the wine, and the blood.
What do you mean?
If a person doesn't confuse categories then it is necessarily true that some words are used in a new and different way. For example, even though they aren't about the Supper, which makes them irrelevant to a right understanding of the words of institution in the Supper, you chose some of Christ's proclamations of deity as examples of figures of speech.

Looking at the first one, John 6, because Roman Catholics mistakenly sometimes use it in defense of their view of the supper, it is clear that if Jesus is the bread from heaven, the bread of eternal life, etc. then it isn't being used as a figure of speech because there is no earthly counterpart. There is no earthly bread from heaven or earthly bread of eternal life for His listeners to recognize it as being used as a figure of speech. His listeners were befuddled.

On the other hand, Jesus is not saying, "I am an earthly symbol, whoever eats this earthly symbol has eternal life." I know that it is not your intention to say that because you have other qualified terms, but that is the meaning if a person reads it consistently with the idea that Jesus is saying that He is an earthly symbol.
Why? He isn't stating He is literal bread. He is our spiritual bread that leads to life, just as He is the living water that we drink of and never thirst again, and when He rerences Himself as the bread of life He is telling us He feeds our soul, but not bread that feeds our body.
See above.
It is in that communion will be used to remember what He did, in that communion symbolizes what He accomplished on the cross that day on Golgotha. He is the perfect Lamb who was slain for the sin of the world. He was the sinless sacrifice. The willing sacrifice for the world and now He is the resurrected King, sitting at the right hand of the Father, interceding for us. So, I reiterate, for communion to be in remembrance He does not need to be present else it's not in remembrance but a celebration and I am very thankful for what He did for me but I don't celebrate what He went through.


I am not denying anything. I take communion in remembrance of what He did. It seems the opposite is true for you though.
The assertion is incomplete and the conclusion is false. You've been denying and continue to deny the body and blood of Christ given for you which the partakers of the Supper receive both orally and spiritually in the Supper, a cause of the Christian's remembrance of Him.
 
Last edited:
Here is a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas:

"The bread and the wine retain the physical appearance of bread and wine and the taste of bread and wine, but they have been completely transformed. The bread is still round, white, thin and crisp when bitten and the wine is red, liquid and a little bit sweet. We call this illusion of appearances the accidents.

“The Church teaches that the substance of the bread changes, and that means the deepest reality of the bread changes and becomes the Body of Christ, even though the accidents or appearances are the same color, texture, taste, etc.”
Aristotle was a pagan philosopher. Whatever good stuff Thomas may have said the quote you provided isn't one of them.

It is an error to think that imposing Aristotle upon Scripture will enhance a person's right understanding of Scripture.
 
Consecrated just means that the bread and wine of Communion are set apart for and dedicated to the Lord's Supper. Which they are.
 
I don't follow you. The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper ARE set apart for Holy Communion. They are not being used for anything except the Lord's Supper. That is biblical.
 
I don't follow you.
The act of consecration of the elements.
The bread and wine in the Lord's Supper ARE set apart for Holy Communion. They are not being used for anything except the Lord's Supper. That is biblical.
I want to know if that is supported Scripturally, based on God's inspired written Word or is it something that has been added and is simply a tradition. I'm trying to understand and grasp the Lutheran (and by default RC) act of consecrating the elements.
 
The act of consecration of the elements.

I want to know if that is supported Scripturally, based on God's inspired written Word or is it something that has been added and is simply a tradition. I'm trying to understand and grasp the Lutheran (and by default RC) act of consecrating the elements.
Consecrate just means to set apart for a special purpose. And the Bread and Wine ARE set apart for the Lord's Supper. The minister makes the sign of the cross over the Elements, and that IS traditional, but that does not go against anything in God's word. He also says the words of the Institution over them, as recorded in the NT ("Take and eat....take and drink"...etc.)But what we use the bread and wine for is what consecrates it.
 
Consecrate just means to set apart for a special purpose.
Thank you. Where is this practice described in Scripture?
And the Bread and Wine ARE set apart for the Lord's Supper.
Ok. Thank you. Where is this practice described in Scripture?
The minister makes the sign of the cross over the Elements, and that IS traditional, but that does not go against anything in God's word.
That's ok. But since it's not Biblical but tradition, if this practice is not performed does that somehow invalidate the communion bread and wine/cracker and juice for taking communion?
He also says the words of the Institution over them, as recorded in the NT ("Take and eat....take and drink"...etc.)
Could you illuminate what "words of the institution" is? I don't' quite understand what this means.
But what we use the bread and wine for is what consecrates it.
What consecrates it? I'm confused.
 
Thank you. Where is this practice described in Scripture?

What do you mean? The early Christians used bread and wine for the Lord's Supper. They were set apart.
Ok. Thank you. Where is this practice described in Scripture?

see above.
That's ok. But since it's not Biblical but tradition, if this practice is not performed does that somehow invalidate the communion bread and wine/cracker and juice for taking communion?

No. As I said, it is a tradition, but it does not contradict anything in Scripture and is "adiaphora--neither commanded nor forbidden." Churches do lots of things not outlined in Scripture. So long as they do not contradict Scripture, and help point to Jesus, there is nothing wrong with that--like worshiping in buildings used only in church services, ministers wearing albs, following a liturgical year, having children sermons, celebrating the Lord's birth, death, and resurrection, etc.
Could you illuminate what "words of the institution" is? I don't' quite understand what this means.

I told you. It is what Jesus said at His Last supper. The minister usually says what Paul says about it, in 1 Cor. 11:

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
What consecrates it? I'm confused.
I already explained this. What we use the bread and wine for--the Lord's Supper--is what consecrates it. They are set apart for that purpose and that purpose only.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean? The early Christians used bread and wine for the Lord's Supper. They were set apart.


see above.


No. As I said, it is a tradition, but it does not contradict anything in Scripture and is "adiaphora--neither commanded nor forbidden." Churches do lots of things no outlined in Scripture. So long as they do not contradict Scripture, and help point to Jesus, there is nothing wrong with that--like worshiping in buildings used only in church services, ministers wearing albs, following a liturgical year, having children sermons, celebrating the Lord's birth, death, and resurrection, etc.


I told you. It is what Jesus said at His Last supper. The minister usually says what Paul says about it, in 1 Cor. 11:



I already explained this. What we use the bread and wine for--the Lord's Supper--is what consecrates it. They are set apart for that purpose and that purpose only.
I appreciate you taking time to try and answer my questions Bonnie. I am seeking to understand why Lutherans believe what you believe about the Last Supper we practice in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice onnthe cross. So, then, consecration is not calling Jesus down to be around, under and above (do I have that right?) the bread and wine but simply putting the elements aside to be used? BJ has told me I am denying the body and blood because I don't believe He was claiming the bread and wine were literally His body and blood but symbolic, like He has referred to Himself as the living water, the bread of life, the vine, etc. So, when I take communion in remembrance and partake of the elements as we do, unlike how Lutherans do, is our communion invalid? Thanks for your time. Don't get frustrated. These are deep, theological questions and I come to you because I believe you are able to describe and answer my questions.

Bless you Bonnie,

Ldb
 
I appreciate you taking time to try and answer my questions Bonnie. I am seeking to understand why Lutherans believe what you believe about the Last Supper we practice in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. So, then, consecration is not calling Jesus down to be around, under and above (do I have that right?) the bread and wine but simply putting the elements aside to be used?

We do not understand fully this side of heaven exactly how Jesus' true body and blood come to be in, with, and under the bread and wine, while they still remain bread and wine. It is a mystery, but one we joyfully accept.
BJ has told me I am denying the body and blood because I don't believe He was claiming the bread and wine were literally His body and blood but symbolic, like He has referred to Himself as the living water, the bread of life, the vine, etc.
Jesus didn't say "I am bread, I am wine" as He did with His other "I am" statements, but "THIS IS my body....THIS IS my blood." IS doesn't mean symbolic of. There is a perfectly good word in Greek for symbolic, or represents that Jesus does not use.
So, when I take communion in remembrance and partake of the elements as we do, unlike how Lutherans do, is our communion invalid?

That is for Jesus to decide. I know that those who do not believe in the Real Presence sincerely believe they are correct and are not trying to be disrespectful, nor do they think they are doing anything wrong.

But remember Paul's warnings in 1 Cor. 11:

7 So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.

How can one sin against a mere symbol?

This tells us that Jesus' true body and blood are somehow present in, with, and under the bread and wine and that we should "discern" this. Yet they also remain bread and wine. So, we do NOT hold to Transubstantiation at all, nor do we call it Consubstantiation. We call what happens the Real Presence and leave it at that.


Thanks for your time. Don't get frustrated. These are deep, theological questions and I come to you because I believe you are able to describe and answer my questions.
Bless you Bonnie,

Ldb
No problem, my friend. Some things I can explain, but some things I cannot, this side of heaven. Bless you too, my friend! Peace!
 
Last edited:
I don't want to go too off topic on the CATH board, in explaining our beliefs about the Real Presence of the Lord's body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine, yet they also remain bread and wine, after consecration. We Lutherans don't attempt to explain it, as Catholics do, we just accept it as a joyful mystery.

I have explained the above I don't know how many times on the CATH board, when the Eucharist comes up. So far as I know, Lutherans are fairly unique in our understanding as to what happens to the Bread and Wine during Communion, though maybe Anglicans believe the same way.

Of course, Catholics believe in Transubstantiation--that after consecration, the bread and wine retain the appearance of those elements, but the substance changes completely to Jesus' body and blood. I asked one Catholic what would happen if a priest drank all of the wine after consecration and this Catholic admitted he would get drunk. I then wrote "But you said the substance was no longer wine. The SUBSTANCE in wine that causes intoxication is ethyl alcohol. IF the wine is no longer wine but entirely Jesus' blood, how could the wine then make the priest drunk?" Or words to that effect. So far I have not received an answer.


I thought I had better bring this to the Lutheran board, since it is about our beliefs about the Lord's Supper. Anyway, does anyone on here have another way of explaining about the Real Presence in the Bread and Wine in Holy Communion?

(On a side note, one Catholic actually wrote that the Eucharist isn't the Lord's Supper! I pointed out the error by quoting Paul from 1 Corinthians, where he plainly calls it just that. )
I received the body and blood of Christ today, on All saints. Amen.
 
I received communion today as a remembrance, and was ever thankful, for what Jesus accomplished on the cross.
When we receive communion we are there at the cross with Jesus and John and the other women, participating in the heavenly banquet with all the angels and saints.
 
Back
Top