Holy Communion

[Scott Shahan]

Is the Glorified Risen Christ present during Holy Communion? What do the Lutherans mean when they say Christ is present. I am having a hard time understanding their theology in terms of Holy Communion. Maybe it is really simple and I am just not getting it!!

LCMS Statement

Sacrificed Body and Blood
Q. In communion, do we commune with the sacrificed body and blood of Jesus, or the resurrected body and blood of Jesus?
A. The answer to your question is that we receive in, with, and under the bread and wine the true body and blood of Christ shed on the cross, Jesus Christ Who is now risen and ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father. He is the same Christ, and when he gave us the Sacrament, as the Lutheran Confessions affirm, "he was speaking of his true, essential body, which he gave into death for us, and of his true, essential blood, which was poured out for us on the tree of the cross for the forgiveness of sins" (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration VII, 49).
In the Sacrament, our Confessions further teach, the same Jesus who died is present in the Sacrament, although not in exactly the same way that he was corporeally present when he walked bodily on earth. With Luther, the Formula of Concord speaks of "the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor yields space but passes through everything created as he wills....He employed this mode of presence when he left the closed grave and came through closed doors, in the bread and wine in the Supper...."[FC SD VII, 100; emphasis
added].

Do they say that the Risen Christ is present during Holy Communion? What do they mean by this statement above? I am not sure what they are saying actually....

Scott

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Many people think there are only 2 basic "ways" of celebrating the L.S.--Roman and Protestant (or something like that).

Those categories are amazingly misleading. Without even thinking, I can describe 4 distinct understandings of the L.S., Lutheran being one of them.

The 4 ways I'm thinking of can be put on a continuum--with Roman on one end, and Zwinglian on the other. In between them, are the Reformed (closer to Zwingli) and Lutheran (closer to Rome). Both the Lutherans and the Reformed fight over whose view is closest to the "biblical balance point." In my opinion, the Lutherans are less apt to make quality distinctions, and simply lump the Reformed world in with the left-wing errorists. And we're more charitable, allowing there is a big difference between what they think and Rome (but both are on the "right-wing" side of truth).

The Lutheran view is CONsubstantiation (as opposed to Roman transsubstantiation). They affirm a "real presence" bodily, but that body is not localized, because they believe that all Christ's human attributes are communicated to the divine nature, and vice versa. At least, that's how we tend to interpret their view, which they might deny is accurate, and point to convoluted explanations (they sound convluted to us) such as the above to explain themselves.

Anyway, the Lutherans (as I understand it) see the eating of the meal as ingestion of Christ's personal body. They do NOT identify that body with the bread (as does Rome), but the body is "taken in" mysteriously. So, there is a "risen", Christological presence.

It seems undeniable to me that in the Lutheran view, the Last Supper must be proleptic of the Lord's Supper (celebrated ever afterward), and not the same, exact Supper. Why? Because in the former Jesus is sitting there with the disciples, he doesn't have his resurrected body yet, and so they cannot partake of him as they will afterward.

This is a fundamental distinction (I believe) in the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper--the Last, and the Lord's Supper are the SAME meal. In much the same way as the initial Passover is the same as the Memorial Passover. (Which also makes us differ significantly from the Zwinglian, who also cannot make those meals basically identical).

We, the Reformed, GO TO HEAVEN AND SIT DOWN WITH Jesus Christ AND EAT SUPPER WITH HIM WHEN WE CELEBRATE COMMUNION. Because that is where Jesus is. Because heaven is where worship in Spirit and Truth actually takes place. This is Hebrews 12:22-24 theology. So, we believe in a "real presence," too. A real spiritual presence. Jesus is really there (or WE are really THERE) presiding over his meal.

And because we "partake IN FAITH," we believe in the meaning of the meal--you are what you eat. Calvin said it best: "We partake of bread in the mouth, and Christ in the heart."

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Staphlobob]

The Lutheran view is CONsubstantiation (as opposed to Roman transsubstantiation). They affirm a "real presence" bodily, but that body is not localized, because they believe that all Christ's human attributes are communicated to the divine nature, and vice versa. At least, that's how we tend to interpret their view, which they might deny is accurate, and point to convoluted explanations (they sound convluted to us) such as the above to explain themselves.

Consubstantiation? No Lutheran in his/her right doctrinal mind has EVER claimed that term to be that church's teaching. The only person in history who has ever used the concept and has affiliated with Lutheranism was that weenie, Melanchthon. It's to be found nowhere in the Lutheran confessions. Plain and simple: it's not a Lutheran doctrine. Never has been. I understand that there are a great many who think it is, but please believe me, it is not.

The concept of con/transubstantiation is rooted in paganism, in Aristotle's ontological categories. There is nothing biblical in either term.

However, if people wish to say "I PERSONALLY THINK the Lutheran understanding is 'consubstantiation'", that's fine. But please let us not make the mistake of attributing it to Lutherans. Let us aim at precision instead.

Though I am not "Lutheran" in my understanding of Christ's presence in the elements of Holy Communion but rather Reformed, I have always been confused about the notion that "we go to heaven and commune with Him there." One of the primary elements in Reformed understanding of Christ's presence in H.C. is understanding that His human nature is localized (in heaven) and so it cannot be present at each and every table where H.C is celebrated.

Yet here is precisely my confusion: Christ cannot be brought down to earth, but we (in our human nature) can be brought up to heaven. His human nature restricts Him, but our human nature is unrestristricted. Hence we are enabled to do something that He cannot do.

As I said, confusing.

So rather than use terminology/imagery like that, I simply prefer to stick with the mystery of it all.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Kevin,
First, let me say that I meant no offense in describing the Lutheran view as "consubstantial". I think, outside Lutheran circles(?), that term is commonplace, and I had no thought that you or others would find it so objectionable, merely as a one-word description. I did check several Systematics on my shelf, old as well as new (none of them are Lutheran), and this term is not uncommon. I guess Melancthon really is to blame? What terminology should we replace it with?

Second, I did not equate the RC view and Lutheran. I regret this terminology, but I hope you understand how easily I came to use it as a description. "The Lutheran view" is not itself descriptive, no more than "the Reformed view." Until taught otherwise, I will maintain that Lutherans affirm that believers partake of the body and blood of Christ in the mouth. Latin "com-/con-" does mean "with", as in "in, with, and under" the elements. Help non-Lutherans give this another name, if truly we need one.

Third, For what it's worth, I will probably always qualify my answer (from now on!) whenever I try to describe the Lutheran position, with "some people call it..." So, consider me schooled.


Fourth, for anyone, allow me address our "spiritual communion" with Christ. It isn't that our human natures or his "trans-locate." Rather, it is that there is a incredible intersection that takes place in LOCATIONS, in the context of Christian worship. We don't simply travel to a spot on the map for our gathering of the people of God. But in that gathering, Eternity transects our temporal reality.

edit on (Let me add here, that what I am stating about God's presence applies to worship in a special way, the way God was specially resident at the Temple in Jerusalem, while at the same time everywhere at once and active in his providential government.) edit off

Heb. 12 tells us that "we have come to mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, to myriads of angels, to the general assembly." So, we aren't JUST on earth, but in Heaven ALSO, because God has supernaturally brought them together for an hour or so by his own presence.

Another instructive text is Genesis 28:12-22. This is the story of Jacob's (God's!) Ladder. How did that place become a Beth-El? Because God brought heaven to earth in Jacob's dream. He set his ladder between heaven and earth, and the angels are going up and down, and God stands at (or above) the intersection and speaks to Jacob.

It is all very, very wonderful, spiritual, and mysterious. But not utterly past comprehension. And yet, until we see God face to face, we see through a glass darkly. Our understanding is not so far beyond the prophets and the apostles on earth. Today they wait for our graduation to join them in a perfected understanding in heaven.


Hope this contributes a little to our meditations on the incredible...

 

[Staphlobob]

>>First, let me say that I meant no offense in describing the Lutheran view as "consubstantial".<<

Sorry if I sounded upset. I'm really not. I'm pretty used to the phrase being used. Just seeking a bit of clarity. So I promise ... you gave no offense whatsoever.

>>What terminology should we replace it with?<<

Good question. Uhh, well how about ... No, that wouldn't work. Maybe ... hmm. No, not that neither.

To be honest with you, I really don't know. The prefix "con" would be acceptable, but the "substantiation" would not. Some Lutherans have referred to it as "Chalcedonian," but that may be offensive to the Reformed as it would seem to exclude us from being Chalcedonian in our own theology.

Maybe "Conpresentation?"<G>

>>I did not equate the RC view and Lutheran.<<

I know you didn't. You were clear on that. Looking back I should have given more of a context as to specifically why Lutherans have historically rejected the term.

>>for anyone, allow me address our "spiritual communion" with Christ. It isn't that our human natures or his "trans-locate." Rather, it is that there is a incredible intersection that takes place in LOCATIONS, in the context of Christian worship. We don't simply travel to a spot on the map for our gathering of the people of God. But in that gathering, Eternity transects our temporal reality.

Heb. 12 tells us that "we have come to mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, to myriads of angels, to the general assembly." So, we aren't JUST on earth, but in Heaven ALSO, because God has supernaturally brought them together for an hour or so by his own presence.

Another instructive text is Genesis 28:12-22. This is the story of Jacob's (God's!) Ladder. How did that place become a Beth-El? Because God brought heaven to earth in Jacob's dream. He set his ladder between heaven and earth, and the angels are going up and down, and God stands at (or above) the intersection and speaks to Jacob.<<

Good points. Yet the question still remains for me. Are we both in heaven and on earth in our human natures? If so, why can we do something that is not allowed for Christ's own human nature?

That the entire topic deals with an unfathomable and glorious mystery is, I think, perhaps the best way of thinking and speaking of it for it seems however we try to describe it, we fall short. Didn't Calvin go in this direction?

BTW, I'm now very Reformed in my theology of H/C. (The thing that finally did it was John 16:7.) It's just that, having once been on the other side, I hold onto some of the debates that are standard on both sides. This baggage can be good or bad.

E.g., Some Reformed use the "I am the way (road)" or "I am the gate" arguments to indicate that Jesus' words "This is my body/blood" can't possibly refer to His real presence in the elements. "After all," they argue, "Christ certainly isn't a road or a gate. He was simply using symbolic illustrations. So too He is doing the same with the bread and wine."

Big problem with this approach. When giving those symbolic illustrations Jesus was not pointing to a particular road or gate; He was not pointing to any external referent as if to say, "I am THAT road." Or, "I am THAT gate." However, at the Last Supper He definitely DID use an external referent, i.e., the bread and wine in His own hands, pointing to them and saying, "THIS is my body/blood."

As I said, it's all just leftover theological baggage that accumulated when I was Lutheran.

 

[Scott Shahan]

>>First, let me say that I meant no offense in describing the Lutheran view as "consubstantial".<<

Sorry if I sounded upset. I'm really not. I'm pretty used to the phrase being used. Just seeking a bit of clarity. So I promise ... you gave no offense whatsoever.

>>What terminology should we replace it with?<<

Good question. Uhh, well how about ... No, that wouldn't work. Maybe ... hmm. No, not that neither.

To be honest with you, I really don't know. The prefix "con" would be acceptable, but the "substantiation" would not. Some Lutherans have referred to it as "Chalcedonian," but that may be offensive to the Reformed as it would seem to exclude us from being Chalcedonian in our own theology.

Maybe "Conpresentation?"<G>

>>I did not equate the RC view and Lutheran.<<

I know you didn't. You were clear on that. Looking back I should have given more of a context as to specifically why Lutherans have historically rejected the term.

>>for anyone, allow me address our "spiritual communion" with Christ. It isn't that our human natures or his "trans-locate." Rather, it is that there is a incredible intersection that takes place in LOCATIONS, in the context of Christian worship. We don't simply travel to a spot on the map for our gathering of the people of God. But in that gathering, Eternity transects our temporal reality.

Heb. 12 tells us that "we have come to mount Zion, to the heavenly Jerusalem, to myriads of angels, to the general assembly." So, we aren't JUST on earth, but in Heaven ALSO, because God has supernaturally brought them together for an hour or so by his own presence.

Another instructive text is Genesis 28:12-22. This is the story of Jacob's (God's!) Ladder. How did that place become a Beth-El? Because God brought heaven to earth in Jacob's dream. He set his ladder between heaven and earth, and the angels are going up and down, and God stands at (or above) the intersection and speaks to Jacob.<<

Good points. Yet the question still remains for me. Are we both in heaven and on earth in our human natures? If so, why can we do something that is not allowed for Christ's own human nature?

That the entire topic deals with an unfathomable and glorious mystery is, I think, perhaps the best way of thinking and speaking of it for it seems however we try to describe it, we fall short. Didn't Calvin go in this direction?

BTW, I'm now very Reformed in my theology of H/C. (The thing that finally did it was John 16:7.) It's just that, having once been on the other side, I hold onto some of the debates that are standard on both sides. This baggage can be good or bad.

E.g., Some Reformed use the "I am the way (road)" or "I am the gate" arguments to indicate that Jesus' words "This is my body/blood" can't possibly refer to His real presence in the elements. "After all," they argue, "Christ certainly isn't a road or a gate. He was simply using symbolic illustrations. So too He is doing the same with the bread and wine."

Big problem with this approach. When giving those symbolic illustrations Jesus was not pointing to a particular road or gate; He was not pointing to any external referent as if to say, "I am THAT road." Or, "I am THAT gate." However, at the Last Supper He definitely DID use an external referent, i.e., the bread and wine in His own hands, pointing to them and saying, "THIS is my body/blood."

As I said, it's all just leftover theological baggage that accumulated when I was Lutheran.

In one sense aren't we already in Heaven right now? We are in Christ and Christ is in us. Aren't we where He is? And isn't He where we are?

Ephesians 2:6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Kevin, Scott,
We definitely praise God for his ineffable and wonderful ways. Rom. 11:33-36. I'm certainly not up to a truly thorough explanation. I hope no one takes what I offered here, and calls that THE Reformed definition of things...

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Consubstantiation? No Lutheran in his/her right doctrinal mind has EVER claimed that term to be that church's teaching. The only person in history who has ever used the concept and has affiliated with Lutheranism was that weenie, Melanchthon. It's to be found nowhere in the Lutheran confessions. Plain and simple: it's not a Lutheran doctrine. Never has been. I understand that there are a great many who think it is, but please believe me, it is not.

Just a note. I was speaking with a pastor in the Lutheran church. he emailed me because I accused Lutherans for belieivng "consubstantiation", and he said he was not, nor do they.

I aksed him to explain to me what they "did" believe.

He explained consubstantiation just as well as Luther did.

 

[Staphlobob]

Just a note. I was speaking with a pastor in the Lutheran church. he emailed me because I accused Lutherans for belieivng "consubstantiation", and he said he was not, nor do they.

I aksed him to explain to me what they "did" believe.

He explained consubstantiation just as well as Luther did.

And I once knew a Reformed pastor who, without realizing it, defended Arminianism to a tee.

As I said, "No Lutheran in his/her right DOCTRINAL mind..." That also applies to the Reformed.

 

[Ivan]

This is a fundamental distinction (I believe) in the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper--the Last, and the Lord's Supper are the SAME meal. In much the same way as the initial Passover is the same as the Memorial Passover. (Which also makes us differ significantly from the Zwinglian, who also cannot make those meals basically identical).

We, the Reformed, GO TO HEAVEN AND SIT DOWN WITH Jesus Christ AND EAT SUPPER WITH HIM WHEN WE CELEBRATE COMMUNION. Because that is where Jesus is. Because heaven is where worship in Spirit and Truth actually takes place. This is Hebrews 12:22-24 theology. So, we believe in a "real presence," too. A real spiritual presence. Jesus is really there (or WE are really THERE) presiding over his meal.

And because we "partake IN FAITH," we believe in the meaning of the meal--you are what you eat. Calvin said it best: "We partake of bread in the mouth, and Christ in the heart."

Without using any labels and after a good deal of discussion, this is the meaning of the Lord's Supper at Maranatha Baptist Church. I wonder what that means?

Also, again without using labels (reformed, Calvisint), the members of the church have agreed upon the doctrine of election. No big fuss, just "this is what the Bible teaches". We all agree that the elect were chosen before the foundation of the world.