Do all of the Christians who account themselves "Traditional" in their theology accept that the real presence is a physical reality?

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Receptionism is also potentially compatible with the Lutheran confessions. But there are also Lutherans that are Consecrationists, particularly in the 16th and 19th centuries.

I know receptionism is a thing in Anglicanism, and the liberal synods, but not in the confessional Churches; those members who do hold this have a misunderstand of our theology.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

I remember one time our pastor ran out of communion wafers that had been on the paten. The altar had a cubby hole for storage and he kept extra hosts there. He pulled them out and served them. After the service he commented he really should have repeated the word of institution for those but in the rush he completely forgot.

As a Lutheran, I was a consecrationist and he and I had some deep discussions of how undistributed hosts should be stored separately (my view) or if the Real Presence disappeared at the end of the service (his view). It was a good discussion that should have been done with beer

 

[FireDragon76]

I know receptionism is a thing in Anglicanism, and the liberal synods, but not in the confessional Churches; those members who do hold this have a misunderstand of our theology.

According to Pastor Jordan Cooper, there were forms of receptionism that were widespread at one time among Lutherans, particularly during the 18th century.

I remember one time our pastor ran out of communion wafers that had been on the paten. The altar had a cubby hole for storage and he kept extra hosts there. He pulled them out and served them. After the service he commented he really should have repeated the word of institution for those but in the rush he completely forgot.

As a Lutheran, I was a consecrationist and he and I had some deep discussions of how undistributed hosts should be stored separately (my view) or if the Real Presence disappeared at the end of the service (his view). It was a good discussion that should have been done with beer

In the ELCA, the practice is to not repeat the Words of Institution in those instances. The Words of Institution apply to all bread and wine used in the sacrament, not limited by a particular time or place.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

According to Pastor Jordan Cooper, there were forms of receptionism that were widespread at one time among Lutherans, particularly during the 18th century.



In the ELCA, the practice is to not repeat the Words of Institution in those instances. The Words of Institution apply to all bread and wine used in the sacrament, not limited by a particular time or place.

As I recall, we agreed that for the sake of those receiving, the Words should have been said again. I doubt that anyone really noticed.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Receptionism is also potentially compatible with the Lutheran confessions. But there are also Lutherans that are Consecrationists, particularly in the 16th and 19th centuries.

I'm uncertain that we are defining it the same way; for us, receptionism is that the Eucharist is only the Body and Blood of Christ when the person receiving it believes that it is. According to this teaching, if a persons faith is insufficient to grasp this, then they are only receiving bread and wine. Such is why Churches the real presense and practice open communion can do so; they belive that an unfaithful person can only sin against the Lord's body and blood, if they believe that is what it is.

Lots of problems with this, the foremost being that receptionism requires you to be the Lord's acomplice in order to obtain the benefits of the sacrament. This cheapens the means of grace, and robs our Lord Jesus Christ of some of the credit; all of whic is his due. This knocks the wind out of Sola Deo Gloria.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I remember one time our pastor ran out of communion wafers that had been on the paten. The altar had a cubby hole for storage and he kept extra hosts there. He pulled them out and served them. After the service he commented he really should have repeated the word of institution for those but in the rush he completely forgot.

As a Lutheran, I was a consecrationist and he and I had some deep discussions of how undistributed hosts should be stored separately (my view) or if the Real Presence disappeared at the end of the service (his view). It was a good discussion that should have been done with beer

Scripture is silent; all it says to "take and eat", not reserve and venerate.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm uncertain that we are defining it the same way; for us, receptionism is that the Eucharist is only the Body and Blood of Christ when the person receiving it believes that it is.

I don't think that's a fair view of receptionism.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Scripture is silent; all it says to "take and eat", not reserve and venerate.

This was a case of what should be done with extra undistributed hosts. Should they be kept separately for the next liturgy or do they just get put in with unconsecrated hosts. Nothing about reserve and venerate.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

This was a case of what should be done with extra undistributed hosts. Should they be kept separately for the next liturgy or do they just get put in with unconsecrated hosts. Nothing about reserve and venerate.

Nothing about storing them for later use. Were there left-overs in the upper room? Of the other references are left-overs mentioned? Nope. We are told clearly to take and eat, and take and drink... which is exactly what we do at the end of the distribution. It is that simple.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't think that's a fair view of receptionism.

Well since such is how confessional Lutherans define it in the light of Scripture, then from our point of reference I would be pretty much spot on. Such is why we view receptionism as heresy. Anything that intentionally or indirectly takes any of the responsibility for grace away from Christ, or casts a shadow on it by requiring our cooperation in grace is heterodox.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Nothing about storing them for later use. Were there left-overs in the upper room? Of the other references are left-overs mentioned? Nope. We are told clearly to take and eat, and take and drink... which is exactly what we do at the end of the distribution. It is that simple.

I remember growing up that my parents had to fill out communion cards saying they intended to take communion, that way the pastor took out enough. I'm assuming that he ate any remaining hosts.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well since such is how confessional Lutherans define it in the light of Scripture, then from our point of reference I would be pretty much spot on. Such is why we view receptionism as heresy. Anything that intentionally or indirectly takes any of the responsibility for grace away from Christ, or casts a shadow on it by requiring our cooperation in grace is heterodox.

I don't think receptionism necessarily has to do with taking away responsibility from Christ and placing any kind of burden on the believer. It's simply a different metaphysical explanation than "in, with, and under", which frankly doesn't have a very clear meaning.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don't think receptionism necessarily has to do with taking away responsibility from Christ and placing any kind of burden on the believer. It's simply a different metaphysical explanation than "in, with, and under", which frankly doesn't have a very clear meaning.

How else would you explain personal partcipation in order to recieve the benefits?? Christ shed His body and blood for us, turning it on by believing is work that we must do and if we have a part in it then that diminishes the sacrifice on the Cross for us; we did nothing.

Likewise, how does this jive with the admonitions regarding worthy reception, and failing to discern Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist?

Receptionism is heterodox.

 

[Paidiske]

How else would you explain personal partcipation in order to recieve the benefits?? Christ shed His body and blood for us, turning it on by believing is work that we must do and if we have a part in it then that diminishes the sacrifice on the Cross for us; we did nothing.

I think there is another way to understand receptionism, which is that the sacramental grace is effective in the receiving person, without that having affected a material change in the elements. It doesn't have to be a "work" that the receiving person does, in that view. There would certainly be Anglicans who would understand it in that kind of way, (although that's not exactly my understanding).

 

[FireDragon76]

How else would you explain personal partcipation in order to recieve the benefits?? Christ shed His body and blood for us, turning it on by believing is work that we must do and if we have a part in it then that diminishes the sacrifice on the Cross for us; we did nothing.

Likewise, how does this jive with the admonitions regarding worthy reception, and failing to discern Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist?

Receptionism is heterodox.

Receptionism doesn't necessarily imply that a person must understand or believe anything in particular to receive the sacrament. It's simply an explanation of how Christ is received in the sacrament if he isn't locally present on earth.

It is a case of where the Epiclesis is important because it points to the Holy Spirit's actions in the sacrament to unite us with Christ. Some of the first use of the Epiclesis in western churches, in fact, occured among Reformed Protestants who were interested in liturgical renewal.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Receptionism doesn't necessarily imply that a person must understand or believe anything in particular to receive the sacrament. It's simply an explanation of how Christ is received in the sacrament if he isn't locally present on earth.

It is a case of where the Epiclesis is important because it points to the Holy Spirit's actions in the sacrament to unite us with Christ. Some of the first use of the Epiclesis in western churches, in fact, occured among Reformed Protestants who were interested in liturgical renewal.

Unless one accepts that He is indeed locally present, in, with and under the bread and wine as Lutherans do; hence there is no other way for us to view receptionism.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I think there is another way to understand receptionism, which is that the sacramental grace is effective in the receiving person, without that having affected a material change in the elements. It doesn't have to be a "work" that the receiving person does, in that view. There would certainly be Anglicans who would understand it in that kind of way, (although that's not exactly my understanding).

I think it comes down to how we are defining it, and how we view "material change" as I replied above, In confessional Lutheranism, Christ's body and blood are present, without a visible/physiological change in the elements. That does not mean that the elements remain unchanged.

 

[Paidiske]

In confessional Lutheranism, Christ's body and blood are present, without a visible/physiological change in the elements.

Yes, that would be close to my own understanding.

That does not mean that the elements remain unchanged.

And what I was trying to explain, is that in a receptionist view, the elements themselves do remain unchanged; the change is in the person receiving them.

 

[FireDragon76]

Unless one accepts that He is indeed locally present, in, with and under the bread and wine as Lutherans do; hence there is no other way for us to view receptionism.

If you push that objection too hard, you end up with impanation.

 

[RileyG]

From an Orthodox and Catholic perspective, the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are believed to become the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ through a mystical transformation. This transformation is understood to be a result of the priest's consecration during the celebration of the sacrament. Believers hold that they are receiving the body and blood of Jesus in a real and tangible way, as a source of grace and spiritual nourishment. This belief is considered a central aspect of the sacrament, and is seen as a way to participate in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and to be united with him and with the community of believers.

Yes.