Lutheran Eucharist

[JimR-OCDS]

The Lutheran view is not even close to the RCC view. RCC believes that a real sacrifice occurs during the consecration and that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. The Lutherans do not believe that a new sacrifice occurs (Christ's sacrifice was once and for all) and that Christ's presences is "in, with and under" the elements of bread and wine.

The RCC believe's that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ and that this is not a new sacrifice, but the one living sacrifice of Christ to the Father.

So, it's the same as what Lutheran's believe, if what you posted is correct.


Jim

 

[SalusaSecundus]

So a lutheran pastor told me the Lord supernaturally becomes present in the bread and wine. I asked so why do you throw away whats what's left if he's supernatural present? He said the Lord then goes a way.

I've never heard of "throwing away" the elements. But many Lutherans hold to a usus view of the sacraments. That is from the Formula of Concord, there is no sacrament outside of the use of a sacrament. The use of the sacrament of the Eucharist is "consecrate distribute receive". Outside of that there is no sacrament. That's why we don't have Eucharistic adoration and processions.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I've never heard of "throwing away" the elements. But many Lutherans hold to a usus view of the sacraments. That is from the Formula of Concord, there is no sacrament outside of the use of a sacrament. The use of the sacrament of the Eucharist is "consecrate distribute receive". Outside of that there is no sacrament. That's why we don't have Eucharistic adoration and processions.

There are rare Lutherans who have reserved Eucharist. Those are the interesting ones in my book. When they start Eucharistic Adoration, let me know.

 

[Kalevalatar]

"Lutheran Christains recognize that in the Lord’s Supper Jesus Christ is present as the Crucified who died for our sins and who rose again for our justification as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world. This sacrifice can be neither continued, nor repeated, nor replaced, nor complemented; but rather it can and should become ever effective anew in the midst of the congregation."

FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, Chapter IV, Eucharist reads:

157. With regard to the issue that was of the greatest importance for the reformers, the eucharistic sacrifice, the Catholic–Lutheran dialogue stated as a basic principle: “Catholic and Lutheran Christians together recognize that in the Lord’s Supper Jesus Christ ‘is present as the Crucified who died for our sins and who rose again for our justification, as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world.’ This sacrifice can be neither continued, nor repeated, nor replaced, nor complemented; but rather it can and should become ever effective anew in the midst of the congregation. There are different interpretations among us regarding the nature and extent of this effectiveness” (Eucharist 56).​

I'm not sure if I understood your question about "anew," but I'm offering this quotation as a possible answer. I encourage you to read the joint declaration (re: Eucharist) as it offers a comprehesive point-to-point where Catholics and Lutherans agree and where we still struggle.

Eucharistic sacrifice
146. Luther’s main objection to Catholic eucharistic doctrine was directed against an understanding of the Mass as a sacrifice. The theology of the eucharist as real remembrance (anamnesis, Realgedächtnis), in which the unique and once-for-all sufficient sacrifice of Christ (Heb 9:1–10:18) makes itself present for the participation of the faithful, was no longer fully understood in late medieval times. Thus, many took the celebration of the Mass to be another sacrifice in addition to the one sacrifice of Christ. According to a theory stemming from Duns Scotus, the multiplication of Masses was thought to effect a multiplication of grace and to apply this grace to individual persons. That is why at Luther’s time, for example, thousands of private masses were said every year at the castle church of Wittenberg.​

 

[chevyontheriver]

No, we don't. Just as Catholics have those who believe falsely about them and their beliefs, so too do Lutherans.

Stand Firm: The Lutheran View on Consubstantiation and the Lord’s Supper

Consubstantiation as a shorthand for Lutheran belief is at very best 'semi-accurate' and at worst just misleading. It is not a term most Lutherans even want to use to describe their classical position. Transubstantiation is at least one acceptable way to describe Catholic belief, although it does suffer from being an Aristotelian definition in a world that seldom consciously thinks that way. So it's OK to refer to Catholic belief as 'transubstantiation although there are other ways to describe it. Not so calling Lutheran belief consubstantiation. I think that word is a word used by Catholics to label the Lutheran belief as easily as using 'transubstantiation' as a shorthand for Catholic belief.

 

[chevyontheriver]

FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION: Lutheran-Catholic Common Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017, Chapter IV, Eucharist

A few things to note about this. First, it was some 40 years ago, when ecumenism was a heady thing. But nothing actually came of it. Since that time Lutherans have changed, and some might no longer concur. And the general state of religious knowledge has declined among Catholics and Lutherans. The good thing is that prejudice has also declined as the worst offenders there have grown old and died. Upshot is that this document is history, but not something seen as compelling any action today. I think ecumenism is largely dead, even among people who could once agree to this.

I already noted that this didn't do anything to explore ministry. Without a minister agreed upon to consecrate the Eucharist, is there a Eucharist? A few things have changed since way back when. Now both Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians have made sure that their bishops are consecrated by 'validly' ordained bishops, mostly Old Catholics or other renegade but validly ordained Catholic or Orthodox bishops. So almost all Lutherans and Anglicans ministers can show some sort of a connection to apostolic succession, at least in a legalistic sense.

What ought to be done today? I'd be all for ecumenism if we all believed the same thing. If we all could say the creeds in their plain sense meaning. But I'm not sure we all do any more. If we did, I'd be all for reunion and intercommunion. The only interesting thing I see is like what happened with Anglicans coming into the Church able to keep their old liturgy almost entirely intact. But as far as intercommunion without an actual common belief, please no.

 

[Kalevalatar]

A few things to note about this. First, it was some 40 years ago, when ecumenism was a heady thing. But nothing actually came of it.

The "FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION: Lutheran-Catholic Common
Commemoration of the Reformation in 2017" document was signed in 2013 and follows the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification of 1999. Since our local ecumenical delegation is just back from their annual visit to Vatican, I have to disagree: in our neck of the woods at least we have kept ecumenism very much alive. The very fact that Pope Francis came to Sweden in October to participate on the occasion of the Joint Catholic-Lutheran Commemoration of the Reformation amounts to a little bit more than "but nothing actually came of it" surely.

I already noted that this didn't do anything to explore ministry.

The chapter following "Eucharist" titled "Ministry" in the "From Conflict to Communion" document explores the issue of ministry.

 

[FireDragon76]

So a lutheran pastor told me the Lord supernaturally becomes present in the bread and wine. I asked so why do you throw away whats what's left if he's supernatural present? He said the Lord then goes a way.

There is no universal agreement on this among Lutherans. At my congregation (ELCA), the elements are consumed or reserved in the sacristy, not thrown away.

Adoration within the context of the use of the sacrament is fine, such as the elevation of the host or when the host is placed in ones hand. Adoration outside the use of the sacrament really isn't something most Lutherans would consider as something we'ld be willing to do.

From a mainline (ELCA) Lutheran perspective, Lutherans are not a church, just a way to be Christian. Sort of like how some say "Reformed" or "Calvinist". Lutherans do not even necessarily have pulpit and altar fellowship with each other in the US because there are disagreements.

Some Lutherans are on good terms with Catholics . My pastor is married to a Catholic and we use catholic prayers and devotional materials, sometimes. We just have a different view of authority than Rome.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I've never heard of "throwing away" the elements. But many Lutherans hold to a usus view of the sacraments. That is from the Formula of Concord, there is no sacrament outside of the use of a sacrament. The use of the sacrament of the Eucharist is "consecrate distribute receive". Outside of that there is no sacrament. That's why we don't have Eucharistic adoration and processions.

The 'use' of the Eucharist is in receiving but sometimes that reception will be for sick or infirm people not in attendance at the service where the Eucharist was consecrated. Any time the Eucharist is moved from it's place of consecration it is a procession of sorts. So processions are sensible if bringing the Eucharist to the sick is sensible.

Reserving the Eucharist means that it will be available to be taken to the sick at any time without needing to consecrate again. This is useful for those who fall seriously sick at odd hours. Having Viaticum available for them means reserving the Eucharist is sensible.

Now if the Eucharist is reserved, and it is truly Jesus Christ present for us, adoration is also sensible. It's not just bread on the altar, not just bread en route to the hospital, not just bread when reserved.

A Lutheran could hold an expanded view of 'usus' to include reservation for the sick, and by extension some options for processions and Eucharistic adoration. I think some Lutherans already do hold to that even as others would think Jesus just goes away after the service ends.

 

[FireDragon76]

The 'use' of the Eucharist is in receiving but sometimes that reception will be for sick or infirm people not in attendance at the service where the Eucharist was consecrated. Any time the Eucharist is moved from it's place of consecration it is a procession of sorts. So processions are sensible if bringing the Eucharist to the sick is sensible.

I know some in the ELCA practice taking the Eucharist to the sick, but that still would not justify the Roman Catholic practice of procession in our minds. The sacrament is primarily for human consumption for the remission of our sins, as Jesus own words in the Gospels attest.

Personally, I could see a future where the ELCA would accept the Roman practices as adiaphora, at best, something that would not prohibit fellowship (just as there are some in the ELCA that do not have a problem with the Roman teaching regarding the intercession of the saints- we do believe the saints pray for us, after all). As long as the Catholics acknowledge the validity of our teaching about the sacraments, specifically that it is given to sinners to be taken and eaten for the forgiveness of all our sins. But I don't see that future as being anything but a hypothetical at this point.

Now if the Eucharist is reserved, and it is truly Jesus Christ present for us, adoration is also sensible. It's not just bread on the altar, not just bread en route to the hospital, not just bread when reserved.

Perhaps, if it were en route to the hospital or the sick, that would be sensible to handle the Sacrament reverantly. But from a Lutheran standpoint we are in danger of using human reason to discern the use of a divine and holy mystery beyond which our Savior has clearly spoken.

A Lutheran could hold an expanded view of 'usus' to include reservation for the sick, and by extension some options for processions and Eucharistic adoration. I think some Lutherans already do hold to that even as others would think Jesus just goes away after the service ends.

The ELCA does not believe officially that we know Jesus goes away when the service ends. But the grace is not promised to us except when we take and eat the sacrament. And it is a great truth of the Theology of the Cross that Jesus gave himself for the use of sinners to save us (after all, Jesus was born in a barn, and we all know what barns smell like). This doesn't mean that the Sacrament doesn't deserve our reverance, but as Lutherans we should be careful about being legalistic here. People dip the Host in the chalice at my church sometimes, for instance. I think that's irreverant and I would never do that, not to mention unsanitary. But I also remember to focus on my own communion, and not that of my neighbor. It is enough that Jesus gives himself to me, an unworthy sinner, fully and personally in the Sacrament.

 

[PanDeVida]

The Lutheran view is not even close to the RCC view. RCC believes that a real sacrifice occurs during the consecration and that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. The Lutherans do not believe that a new sacrifice occurs (Christ's sacrifice was once and for all) and that Christ's presences is "in, with and under" the elements of bread and wine.

RC, what is this "in, with and under"?

It seems that the Lutherans, don't not have enough Faith, that Jesus Christ, has the Power to do all things. The bread at the Consecration of the Catholic Mass becomes 100% the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has the Faith that Jesus Christ has the Power to do this MIRACLE! Amen

RC, I even have the power to be "in, with, and under". Imagine: Lets say I get a big piece of bread, I step "IN" it, I will be "WITH" it, and I also can be "UNDER" it, all at the same time, no true miracle here.

RC, to become totally the Bread, I can't do that, only Jesus Christ Can at the Consecration of the Mass. Amen

RC, Correct me if I am wrong, not even their founding Father Martin Luther, believed "in" "with" "under". They do this to separate themselves from the Catholic Church, by weakening the Power of Jesus Christ, that he cannot do all things.

 

[RC1970]

RC, what is this "in, with and under"?

It seems that the Lutherans, don't not have enough Faith, that Jesus Christ, has the Power to do all things. The bread at the Consecration of the Catholic Mass becomes 100% the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has the Faith that Jesus Christ has the Power to do this MIRACLE! Amen

RC, I even have the power to be "in, with, and under". Imagine: Lets say I get a big piece of bread, I step "IN" it, I will be "WITH" it, and I also can be "UNDER" it, all at the same time, no true miracle here.

RC, to become totally the Bread, I can't do that, only Jesus Christ Can at the Consecration of the Mass. Amen

RC, Correct me if I am wrong, not even their founding Father Martin Luther, believed "in" "with" "under". They do this to separate themselves from the Catholic Church, by weakening the Power of Jesus Christ, that he cannot do all things.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." ~ Mark Twain

 

[63iam]

I have been doing some reading and came across a lutheran teaching on the eucharist and i was wondering if the Catholic understanding is exactly the same... its obviously close but is it the same?

"Lutheran Christains recognize that in the Lord’s Supper Jesus Christ is present as the Crucified who died for our sins and who rose again for our justification as the once-for-all sacrifice for the sins of the world. This sacrifice can be neither continued, nor repeated, nor replaced, nor complemented; but rather it can and should become ever effective anew in the midst of the congregation."

I think its very close but i dont know what they mean by it being anew.

We would say correct me if i am wrong that the once and for all sacrafice of christ is not continued but is the continual i.e eternal once and for all sacrafice re presented at all the masses said from one moment to the next.

So what does anew mean?

Google says it means

"in a new or different and typically more positive way"

Do you think this "anew" could be considered catholic too?

To me It sounds a kind of abstract term and openended without a concrete definition.

I don't know what "anew" means in the context of the paragraph you quoted but it means to be enlightened by the Holy Spirit of God in biblical text. It's a spiritual rebirth that will eventually teach you that the world we see around us is not our true reality. What is true is our Creator and his creation.

 

[chevyontheriver]

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." ~ Mark Twain

What we have discovered, but never expected, is that Catholic teaching and Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist are not so very far apart.

What do we do with that? Being true to Jesus, how do we procede? We do have many differences still, and many attitudes we have not given up for Lent. In 2017, after 500 whole years, do we still rag on our opponents. I'm not saying to celebrate 500 years of division, but to make some sort of real baby step to undo the mess. Starting with attitude.

 

[RC1970]

What we have discovered, but never expected, is that Catholic teaching and Lutheran teaching on the Eucharist are not so very far apart.

What do we do with that? Being true to Jesus, how do we procede? We do have many differences still, and many attitudes we have not given up for Lent. In 2017, after 500 whole years, do we still rag on our opponents. I'm not saying to celebrate 500 years of division, but to make some sort of real baby step to undo the mess. Starting with attitude.

There can be no unity without truth.

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." ~ Romans 16:17-18

 

[63iam]

There can be no unity without truth.

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." ~ Romans 16:17-18

That's why most religious people are divided up into millions of different groups on earth. They all think the doctrines and traditions they believe in are the right ones. In other words, there is no truth in this world.

"Truth is not of this world but it exposes this world for what it is and leaves it naked and exposed for those who understand it."

 

[chevyontheriver]

There can be no unity without truth.

Exactly. Or there can be a bogus unity that is not unity IN Christ but in some other name. But do we all just take our marbles and go home because we differ on a bunch of things? Look at what we can agree on. Including all of those true things. Including an almost identical understanding of the Eucharist.

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." ~ Romans 16:17-18

We have been kept apart by those who do not serve our Lord. What are we going to do about it?

 

[chevyontheriver]

In other words, there is no truth in this world.

Not quite the case.

 

[RC1970]

We have been kept apart by those who do not serve our Lord. What are we going to do about it?

As the Apostle says, avoid them.

 

[Open Heart]

Basically, we don't literally sacrifice Christ over and over again

Neither do we. We participate in the Sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.