Different Views of the Lord's Supper

Tree of Life said:

The Reformed view also rejects the supper as a sacrifice and views it rather as a post-sacrificial feast. The one sacrifice has already occurred and now, in the supper, we celebrate the feast. Whereas in the Catholic view the bread is the very body of Christ, in the Reformed view the bread is the very bread of heaven that we will enjoy in the marriage supper of the lamb. Christ is spiritually present in the elements and is truly received by faith. The elements retain no special significance after the event.

Click to expand...

Tree of Life said:

The Zwinglian view

Click to expand...

Tree of Life said:

rejects both the supper as a sacrifice and rejects any special presence of Christ. In this view the supper is purely a memorial - something that we do to remember Jesus’ death for our sins. Jesus is not in any way specially present in the event and the event is not a means of grace.

Click to expand...

I've never heard the Reformed view as described above being taught in Reformed churches. I've also never heard of the Lord's Supper as being a precursor or symbol of the bread of heaven.

The only view I've ever heard expounded in Reformed churches is what you refer to as the Zwinglian view.

To my recollection, Heidelberg Catechism (one of the doctrinal forms commonly recognized by Reformed churches) would reject the Reformed view above and teach the Zwinglian view.

I refreshed my recollection with a quick skim of these links as it still seems it would hold to your description of the Zwinglian view:

How does the Lord's supper signify and seal to you that you share in Christ's one sacrifice on the cross and in all his gifts? - Lord's Day 28 - Heidelberg Catechism
Are then the bread and wine changed into the real body and blood of Christ? - Lord's Day 29 - Heidelberg Catechism
What difference is there between the Lord's supper and the papal mass? - Lord's Day 30 - Heidelberg Catechism

Are you aware of a large number of Reformed churches rejecting the Heidelberg Catechism's positions on this issue?

Tree of Life said:

The Lutherans ... reject that the “host” maintains any special significance after the event.

Click to expand...

The Lutheran position is that we don't know, and so we don't say one way or the other. We know that the Eucharist is the very body and blood of Christ given to and for us; respect is afforded to the remaining gifts, but whether they are still "significant" after reception is unknowable, and so we don't make a dogmatic statement one way or the other.

-CryptoLutheran

Tree of Life said:

No I believe you've misunderstood the Heidelberg. It articulates the Reformed view.

Click to expand...

Tree of Life said:

in the Reformed view the bread is the very bread of heaven that we will enjoy in the marriage supper of the lamb. Christ is spiritually present in the elements and is truly received by faith.

Click to expand...

I just re-read the Heidelburg more carefully and I still don't find ^^.

The following sounds like the Zwinglian view to me:

#76 Q. How does the Lord's supper signify and seal to you that you share in Christ's one sacrifice on the cross and in all his gifts?

A. In this way: Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread and drink of this cup in remembrance of him. With this command he gave these promises: 1 First, as surely as I see with my eyes the bread of the Lord broken for me and the cup given to me, so surely was his body offered for me and his blood poured out for me on the cross. Second, as surely as I receive from the hand of the minister and taste with my mouth the bread and the cup of the Lord as sure signs of Christ's body and blood, so surely does he himself nourish and refresh my soul to everlasting life with his crucified body and shed blood.

#77 Q. What does it mean to eat the crucified body of Christ and to drink his shed blood? [this still just seems a remembrance, ie Zwingli, rather than something being the very bread of heaven]

A. First, to accept with a believing heart all the suffering and the death of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of sins and life eternal. 1 Second, to be united more and more to his sacred body through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us. 2 Therefore, although Christ is in heaven 3 and we are on earth, yet we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones, 4 and we forever live and are governed by one Spirit, as the members of our body are by one soul. 5

#78 Q.Are then the bread and wine changed into the real body and blood of Christ? [still no reference to the bread of heaven or a spiritual mystery, but rather simply a remembrance. ]

A. No. Just as the water of baptism is not changed into the blood of Christ and is not the washing away of sins itself but is simply God's sign and pledge, 1 so also the bread in the Lord's supper does not become the body of Christ itself, 2 although it is called Christ's body 3 in keeping with the nature and usage of sacraments. 4

#79 Q.Why then does Christ call the bread his body and the cup his blood,or the new covenant in his blood,and why does Paul speak of a participation in the body and blood of Christ? [still no reference to the bread of heaven or a spiritual mystery, but rather simply a remembrance. ]

A. Christ speaks in this way for a good reason: He wants to teach us by his supper that as bread and wine sustain us in this temporal life, so his crucified body and shed blood are true food and drink for our souls to eternal life. 1 But, even more important, he wants to assure us by this visible sign and pledge,
first, that through the working of the Holy Spirit we share in his true body and blood as surely as we receive with our mouth these holy signs in remembrance of him, 2 and, second, that all his suffering and obedience are as certainly ours as if we personally had suffered and paid for our sins. 3

#80 [still looks like only a remembrance]
A.The Lord's supper testifies to us, first, that we have complete forgiveness of all our sins through the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself accomplished on the cross once for all; 1 and, second,
that through the Holy Spirit we are grafted into Christ, 2 who with his true body is now in heaven at the right hand of the Father, 3 and this is where he wants to be worshiped.

Where do you see the description of the Reformed view you had mentioned embedded here in the Heidelberg Catechism? It may just be my filter is strongly tuned to the Zwingli view so I'm not picking up the other viewpoint in my own reading of it. No mention of heaven's feast, or Christ's spiritual presence.

I'm aware that Calvin had mentioned something along the lines of a mysterious spiritual presence (I don't have a citation for that) but I wasn't aware that comment really took hold within the Reformed forms of doctrine, at least in the forms I'm familiar with (particularly the Heidelberg Catechism).

I'm eager to see your response. I love to examine my perspectives in the view of finding and owning up to (eradicating?) any filters that I'm blind to. I came to realize I had a few (!!) several years ago and keeping an eye out for them now has really deepened my Bible studies and understanding of Christ.

I am ex Anglican and I would reserve judgement on that, you speak for episcopalian which is only one part of a broad Anglican church which has a range of views from so called high church near catholic to so called low church near symbolic and various other shades in between. It was that inconsistency that started my journey: there can only be one truth one Eucharist.

PloverWing said:

In the Anglican tradition, the consecrated host remains consecrated after the conclusion of the service. We would never just toss it back in the box with ordinary bread/crackers/wafers. It retains its sacramental quality. I believe that the Lutheran view on this is similar to the Anglican view, but I'll wait to hear from the Lutherans.

Click to expand...

FenderTL5 said:

I liked your "made present" depiction.

As I understand it the word is Anamnesis. That's essentially what it means.

Click to expand...

While Lutherans reject that the Eucharist is "an unbloody sacrifice" which is made to God, i.e. a re-presentation of Christ's sacrifice to God. We would affirm that in the Eucharist we receive and participate in the one sacrifice of Christ. For us this is a key difference between sacramental actions and sacrificial actions; the Eucharist is a sacrament and so God is doing the acting, and giving us Christ's body and blood, Christ's once-and-for-all sacrifice for us. That is why it isn't something we are offering to God, but rather something God is offering to us.

Yes, here in the Mystery of the Eucharist we share in, and participate in, Christ's sacrifice which He did once and for all, and the language of Anamnesis does this accurately by speaking about the bringing together of past and present together.

It is Anamanesis because here in the Eucharist we are drawn into the Mystery of Christ's death, and we receive Christ Himself, His broken body for us, His shed blood for us. There is forgiveness of sins here because this is Christ Himself and what He has done, for us.

But we do not say that it is a sacrifice, that is, we are not the ones (either the priest specificaly or the Church as a whole) presenting sacrifice to God; instead we are receiving Christ's sacrifice sacramentally as pure gift. We are the recipients, God is the giver.

This is an important distinction in Lutheran thought. It's why we typically prefer the language of Table over the language of Altar; we want to avoid thinking of the Eucharist as something being done for God and instead insist on the thinking that here God is providing and offering Himself for us, and so we are seated here at the Table of the Lord in communion with Him and all God's people as He gives us the gifts of Himself. This is Christ's Table, a foretaste of the heavenly banquet of the Lamb, as we receive the gifts of God, Christ's body and blood here in and under this bread and wine, sacramentally given to us.

-CryptoLutheran

W2L said:

Tradition causes factions.

Click to expand...

the opposite is true. Lack of tradition ,( i.e. Ignoring The historic faith handed down) so all interpreting scripture their own way is what causes factions.

Albion said:

Does that change anything? Until now, having any factions, schisms, or divisions has been said by the "only One True Church" folks to be the proof that no church but theirs is genuine.

Click to expand...

I've never seen the claim that this church is the one true church because we have less factions, schisms, or divisions than the other bunch as affirming their argument true. How many major factions exist in Islam? How about Buddhism? Use any other world religion out there. They all claim that Christians are false based on so many factions, yet they themselves are false. This is actually one of the major cautions to me when I hear people say their faith have been consistent in all things since the beginning (I don't agree with the Trail of Blood folks). "The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error. Some have degenerated so much that they have ceased to be churches of Christ and have become synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, Christ always has had and will have in this world to the very end a kingdom of those who believe in him and profess his name" (2LBC 26:3). The other extreme is from folks like the Mormons who claim Christ's Church was completely lost for +1800 years until a Muhammad-like prophet arose to restore order and truth (yet the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sings hymns like A Mighty Fortress? I'm lost).

Division in Christianity is proof that we are different than other major religions, as well as divisions within denominations. Jonathan Edwards said it right that it is one of the marks of a true church is when there are factions (although in context he may be referring to a major sort of factions).

Mountainmike said:

the opposite is true. Lack of tradition ,( i.e. Ignoring The historic faith handed down) so all interpreting scripture their own way is what causes factions.

Click to expand...

So whos tradition is right?

W2L said:

So whos tradition is right?

Click to expand...

Who doesn't come into it. THE tradition is that handed down from the first generations, visible in early fathers writings. Useful for studying Eucharist.

Tree of Life said:

In my upcoming ordination exam I am supposed to be able to distinguish between the Roman Catholic view, the Lutheran view, the Reformed view, and the Zwinglian view. Here's how I would put the distinction. If you're knowledgable on this issue and you're coming from one of these views would you please review my work and correct me where I'm wrong?

The Roman Catholic view sees the supper as a propitiatory sacrifice wherein the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross is re-presented and reapplied to those who partake. The offering of the eucharist is efficacious to atone for venial sins committed between celebrations. The substance of the elements is transformed to become the true body and true blood of Christ and the host remains God even after the ceremony. The sacrament works ex opere operato and is not dependent upon the piety of the priest nor upon the faith of the partaker.

The Lutheran view is that Christ is truly present in with and under the elements. The Lutheran view does not say that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed, but does affirm that Christ is physically present in the elements. The Lutheran view says that the body of Christ and his human nature is omnipresent just like his divinity is omnipresent. The Lutherans reject the idea of the sacrifice of the mass. They likewise reject that the “host” maintains any special significance after the event.

The Reformed view also rejects the supper as a sacrifice and views it rather as a post-sacrificial feast. The one sacrifice has already occurred and now, in the supper, we celebrate the feast. Whereas in the Catholic view the bread is the very body of Christ, in the Reformed view the bread is the very bread of heaven that we will enjoy in the marriage supper of the lamb. Christ is spiritually present in the elements and is truly received by faith. The elements retain no special significance after the event.

The Zwinglian view rejects both the supper as a sacrifice and rejects any special presence of Christ. In this view the supper is purely a memorial - something that we do to remember Jesus’ death for our sins. Jesus is not in any way specially present in the event and the event is not a means of grace.

Click to expand...

Here's my view... Jesus said "This is my body" about the bread. When we eat it, it becomes part of our physically body, which is a member of the Body of Christ so in that way, bread is literally transformed into flesh, and that of Christ Jesus (for those in whom the Spirit dwells).

Tree of Life said:

In my upcoming ordination exam I am supposed to be able to distinguish between the Roman Catholic view, the Lutheran view, the Reformed view, and the Zwinglian view. Here's how I would put the distinction. If you're knowledgable on this issue and you're coming from one of these views would you please review my work and correct me where I'm wrong?

The Roman Catholic view sees the supper as a propitiatory sacrifice wherein the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross is re-presented and reapplied to those who partake. The offering of the eucharist is efficacious to atone for venial sins committed between celebrations. The substance of the elements is transformed to become the true body and true blood of Christ and the host remains God even after the ceremony. The sacrament works ex opere operato and is not dependent upon the piety of the priest nor upon the faith of the partaker.

The Lutheran view is that Christ is truly present in with and under the elements. The Lutheran view does not say that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed, but does affirm that Christ is physically present in the elements. The Lutheran view says that the body of Christ and his human nature is omnipresent just like his divinity is omnipresent. The Lutherans reject the idea of the sacrifice of the mass. They likewise reject that the “host” maintains any special significance after the event.

The Reformed view also rejects the supper as a sacrifice and views it rather as a post-sacrificial feast. The one sacrifice has already occurred and now, in the supper, we celebrate the feast. Whereas in the Catholic view the bread is the very body of Christ, in the Reformed view the bread is the very bread of heaven that we will enjoy in the marriage supper of the lamb. Christ is spiritually present in the elements and is truly received by faith. The elements retain no special significance after the event.

The Zwinglian view rejects both the supper as a sacrifice and rejects any special presence of Christ. In this view the supper is purely a memorial - something that we do to remember Jesus’ death for our sins. Jesus is not in any way specially present in the event and the event is not a means of grace.

Click to expand...

I've been an ordained Christian Reformed minister since 1980. The Reformed view, as I understand it, says that the Holy Spirit is active in the hearts of true believers as we partake of the elements to strengthen our faith as we focus on Jesus death. I have never heard of it's being the "true bread of heaven." Perhaps, there's another Reformed view than the one I learned.

Tree of Life said:

In my upcoming ordination exam I am supposed to be able to distinguish between the Roman Catholic view, the Lutheran view, the Reformed view, and the Zwinglian view. Here's how I would put the distinction. If you're knowledgable on this issue and you're coming from one of these views would you please review my work and correct me where I'm wrong?

The Roman Catholic view sees the supper as a propitiatory sacrifice wherein the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross is re-presented and reapplied to those who partake. The offering of the eucharist is efficacious to atone for venial sins committed between celebrations. The substance of the elements is transformed to become the true body and true blood of Christ and the host remains God even after the ceremony. The sacrament works ex opere operato and is not dependent upon the piety of the priest nor upon the faith of the partaker.

The Lutheran view is that Christ is truly present in with and under the elements. The Lutheran view does not say that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed, but does affirm that Christ is physically present in the elements. The Lutheran view says that the body of Christ and his human nature is omnipresent just like his divinity is omnipresent. The Lutherans reject the idea of the sacrifice of the mass. They likewise reject that the “host” maintains any special significance after the event.

The Reformed view also rejects the supper as a sacrifice and views it rather as a post-sacrificial feast. The one sacrifice has already occurred and now, in the supper, we celebrate the feast. Whereas in the Catholic view the bread is the very body of Christ, in the Reformed view the bread is the very bread of heaven that we will enjoy in the marriage supper of the lamb. Christ is spiritually present in the elements and is truly received by faith. The elements retain no special significance after the event.

The Zwinglian view rejects both the supper as a sacrifice and rejects any special presence of Christ. In this view the supper is purely a memorial - something that we do to remember Jesus’ death for our sins. Jesus is not in any way specially present in the event and the event is not a means of grace.

Click to expand...

I've been an ordained Christian Reformed minister since 1980. The Reformed view, as I understand it, says that the Holy Spirit is active in the hearts of true believers as we partake of the elements to strengthen our faith as we focus on Jesus death. I have never heard of it's being the "true bread of heaven." Perhaps, there's another Reformed view than the one I learned.

When I take communion I live in the question, is this really Jesus, or a symbol, within I say "yes" and take the communion. I can feel God flowing through me like I consumed him afterwards.

I also like pizza and pop communion.

Tree of Life said:

In my upcoming ordination exam I am supposed to be able to distinguish between the Roman Catholic view, the Lutheran view, the Reformed view, and the Zwinglian view. Here's how I would put the distinction. If you're knowledgable on this issue and you're coming from one of these views would you please review my work and correct me where I'm wrong?

The Roman Catholic view sees the supper as a propitiatory sacrifice wherein the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross is re-presented and reapplied to those who partake. The offering of the eucharist is efficacious to atone for venial sins committed between celebrations. The substance of the elements is transformed to become the true body and true blood of Christ and the host remains God even after the ceremony. The sacrament works ex opere operato and is not dependent upon the piety of the priest nor upon the faith of the partaker.

The Lutheran view is that Christ is truly present in with and under the elements. The Lutheran view does not say that the substance of the bread and wine are transformed, but does affirm that Christ is physically present in the elements. The Lutheran view says that the body of Christ and his human nature is omnipresent just like his divinity is omnipresent. The Lutherans reject the idea of the sacrifice of the mass. They likewise reject that the “host” maintains any special significance after the event.

The Reformed view also rejects the supper as a sacrifice and views it rather as a post-sacrificial feast. The one sacrifice has already occurred and now, in the supper, we celebrate the feast. Whereas in the Catholic view the bread is the very body of Christ, in the Reformed view the bread is the very bread of heaven that we will enjoy in the marriage supper of the lamb. Christ is spiritually present in the elements and is truly received by faith. The elements retain no special significance after the event.

The Zwinglian view rejects both the supper as a sacrifice and rejects any special presence of Christ. In this view the supper is purely a memorial - something that we do to remember Jesus’ death for our sins. Jesus is not in any way specially present in the event and the event is not a means of grace.

Click to expand...

Zwinglians view is closer to the scriptures. But there is another view of the true supper and this supposing is an inward eating and drinking in the spirit as Christ is in our heart and sups with us.

Revelation 3:20. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.”

And the spiritual eating and drinking to have this spiritual meat and spiritual drink has been the life and food of all the saints of all time.

1 Corinthians 10:3. And did all eat the same spiritual meat;4. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.”

Eating Jesus flesh and drinking his blood is connected to the cross and his work on earth but the inward reality is where the life is.

John 6:50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.53. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.54. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Jesus said that coming to him and believing in him is how we eat and drink. So when we come to him by hearing him and believing the gospel in our hearts and when we believe Christ then dwells in our heart by faith

John 6:35. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.”

Mountainmike said:

I am ex Anglican and I would reserve judgement on that, you speak for episcopalian which is only one part of a broad Anglican church which has a range of views from so called high church near catholic to so called low church near symbolic and various other shades in between. It was that inconsistency that started my journey: there can only be one truth one Eucharist.

Click to expand...

It is true that my experience of Anglican worship has been almost entirely in the Episcopal Church in the US, so it's possible that some of the other Anglican churches differ from us on this. (I would not have expected Anglican churches to take a genuinely Zwinglian approach, but that's a discussion for STR; I'm always willing to learn.)

In any case, I only mentioned Anglicans because TEC and ELCA are in full communion, so I thought the Anglican and Lutheran views might be similar. Anglican theology isn't on the OP's exam, so we can set it aside for now.

Albion said:

Unless so directed by TreeofLife, I hope we do not drift into justifying the view that each of us prefers. The idea here was simply to identify and summarize each.

Click to expand...

If you referred to my post I think you missed the point. It was not a "party political" broadcast!

I was first stating that the orthodox view is sufficiently different to catholic at a philosophical level to note that difference, and so probably should appear on that list in its own right. Although of course it is sufficiently the same that we can and do share eucharist with them.

Second that any view of the eucharist cannot be held in a vaccuum, it can only be held by stating how it is possible to reconcile it with the scriptures (eg Jesus use of the word "gnaw", not consume, or Pauls statement "some are ill, some have died" for profaning it). What do those statements mean / how are they interpreted by those who hold a particular theology?
Also an explanation for why the theology differs (or agrees) with early church fathers, particularly anti nicene and prior to new testament. Some present eucharist theologies hold the entire first millenium including first disciples of apostles as apostate. That needs stating as a major issue dividing views on eucharist.

Third on categorisation, the views of real presence and sacrifice are correctly mentioned in the OP list as major similiraties and or differences.
But there is also the major question of who or what makes the eucharist valid which markedly differs between theologies. The earliest writings held (I am thinking of such as ignatius) that only a bishop or his appointee could perform a valid eucharist. That is such a profound difference it needs highlighting in the lists above. The need for apostolic succession is also a substantive difference between theologies, as is the need to demonstrate lineage for those who hold to it.

FireDragon76 said:

U kidding? Luther left the table saying "Those people are of a different spirit from us".

Among liberals in our denomination (ELCA), Marburg is something they do alot of hand-wringing over as an "obstacle to unity". The ecumenism bug has bitten them hard, so our laity driven synod voted yeas ago to recognize the ministry of the Reformed and to agree to altar and pulpit fellowship with the largest denominations that ordained women. But it was not without debate and even controversy by serious theologians, and of course the LCMS folks can beat us up about it any time they are feeling smug.

In fairness, Lutherans have a long history of settling for a Reformed church when no Lutheran church was available . My pastor was baptized in a Ukrainian Reformed church in rural New Jersey, for instance.

Click to expand...

Thank you for distinguishing that you're ELCA. Being I can't speak for any individuals you may have encountered, synodically it has nothing to do about being smug coming from denominations like the WELS \ ELS \ LCMS and you know that.

Luther stood fast on theological principle … and with today's ELCA, he'd would leave saying the thing: "Those people are of a different spirit from us".
,

twin.spin said:

Luther stood fast on theological principle … and with today's ELCA, he'd would leave saying the thing: "Those people are of a different spirit from us".
,

Click to expand...

That's what I mean by smugness.

This is basic teaching of the L.S. that is taught in Lutheran denominations like WELS \ ELS
https://wels.net/about-wels/what-we-believe/doctrinal-statements/lords-supper/

We need to study Christ’s words of institution in Christ’s words of institution in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and in 1 Corinthians, as well as St. Paul’s additional statements about the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians 11 and 10. On that basis we can establish the following concerning the essence of the usus of the Lord’s Supper (consecration, distribution, reception):

1. The real and substantial presence of Christ’s body and blood during the usus.

2. The sacramental union of bread and wine and of Christ’s body and blood during the usus.

3. The oral manducation of bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood by all the communicants during the usus.

4. The real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the usus is brought about solely and alone by the power of Christ according to the words of institution, that is, by His command and promise. We accept this statement (Point 4) with the understanding that:

a. The real presence is effected solely by the original words of institution spoken by our Lord (causa efficiens) and repeated by the officiant at His command (causa instrumentalis).

b. While we cannot fix from Scripture the point within the sacramental usus when the real presence of Christ’s body and blood begins, we know from Scripture and acknowledge in the Confessions that what is distributed and received is the body and blood of Christ.

c. The Confessions do not assert more as a point of doctrine than the above, which is clearly taught in Scripture.