Lutheran understanding of the holy supper

[timfost]

Hi all,

It's common for Lutherans to teach that Christ's body is "in, with, and under the bread."

Is their primary meaning in this wording to teach that because Christ is omnipresent, he is both in and all around the elements, thus allowing them to agree that in some sense that the element is Christ's body?

If this is the case, is it also safe to say that the error arises primarily from a failure to distinguish between Christ's human and divine natures?

Thanks!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'm using "Reformed" in the way of Calvin, the Confessions; and arguably in contrast to Zwingli and even Ch.Hodge.

Lutherans accuse Reformed of tending to Nestorianism.
Reformed accuse Lutherans of tending to Eutychianism. https://www.theopedia.com/eutychianism

Lutherans: Lord's Supper involves immediate communion with Christ (whole, not according to one nature or the other) by the mouth. The bread does not change; but Christ bodily accompanies it.
Reformed: Bread received in the mouth; Christ received spiritually (and really) in the heart.

Lutherans: Christ comes down to earth (bodily in fact) in the mystery of the Supper.
Reformed: Men are lifted (spiritually by the Spirit) to heaven and meet with Christ there in the Supper.

For Lutherans, a "real presence" can be nothing less than Christ immediately at hand, bodily and spiritually.
For Reformed, "spiritual presence" is as REAL as any other modality. Our communion with the physical body of Christ is exactly and as closely as when the disciples were sitting with Christ at the inaugural Supper.

As Reformed, we might ask our Lutheran friends, "Was Christ distended in space at the inaugural meal. As the disciples at the bread and drank the cup with Christ seated next to them, were they physically in contact with some part of him in their mouths?" If there was a different sort of real presence of Christ at the inaugural Supper, then the memorial meals have all been of a different nature from the original.

Whether the Lutherans accept our concern or not, our concern is the integrity of Christ-in-two-natures, and the integrity of each nature; and the integrity of the Supper. In addition, we assert that the Ascension of Christ tells a certain kind of truth: that in the body/flesh, Christ isn't down on earth any more, and in order to be with him in that manner, we must go to heaven where he is in that nature.

We can do that while we are in the flesh only in spirit and by the Spirit; but it is still sweet communion. Yet, we have to step away from the Table periodically, and return time and again for a foretaste of the promised reunion. We argue: it is not for now to experience more than a virtual bodily encounter; but our one-way crossing the veil between life and death means an end to those fleeting, wistful moments.

We think the Lutheran idea tries to have more of heaven now than we've been promised (overrealized eschatology). We think it is formally a confusion of the Two Natures, because the human nature has been ubiquitized. And I know of one sincere Lutheran pastor who has admitted the propriety of bowing to the altar (on which sits the consecrated bread)--because that's literally the visibly-localized presence of Christ.

For the Lutheran, if Christ is not bodily present in the believer's mouth (and the unbeliever's, this is what unworthy partaking amounts to in their view) then he isn't "really" present. They see themselves as opposing "nominalism" in this way, and thence to a more sure connection to the church's "historic consensus."

This is, perhaps, the best way to understand Luther's insistence on the meaning of "is" (as in, this is my body). Christ's body was a particular thing with its own inherent reality (not merely a name or placeholder); therefore there could be no metaphoric meaning or intention (a deception, of a sort) in Christ's assertion. Rather, it had to be the case that here was no figure of speech; while at the same time, no transubstantiation of the bread. Communion with Christ's body had to be effected by means of the bread, thus Christ in the mouth.

Could Luther have found the real-but-spiritual presence of Calvin acceptable, against the memorialist (Zwinglian)? Some disputed evidence exists to say that he would have found (did find) it tolerable. I don't think that it's best to say the Lutherans "fail to distinguish" Christ's two natures, though they do fuse and cross-propagate the attributes of each to the other. Hopefully, this post serves to open up a broader perspective on what they aim to preserve (in relation to what the Reformed aim to preserve) by their formulation.

 

[Susan777]

I'm using "Reformed" in the way of Calvin, the Confessions; and arguably in contrast to Zwingli and even Ch.Hodge.

Lutherans accuse Reformed of tending to Nestorianism.
Reformed accuse Lutherans of tending to Eutychianism. https://www.theopedia.com/eutychianism

Lutherans: Lord's Supper involves immediate communion with Christ (whole, not according to one nature or the other) by the mouth. The bread does not change; but Christ bodily accompanies it.
Reformed: Bread received in the mouth; Christ received spiritually (and really) in the heart.

Lutherans: Christ comes down to earth (bodily in fact) in the mystery of the Supper.
Reformed: Men are lifted (spiritually by the Spirit) to heaven and meet with Christ there in the Supper.

For Lutherans, a "real presence" can be nothing less than Christ immediately at hand, bodily and spiritually.
For Reformed, "spiritual presence" is as REAL as any other modality. Our communion with the physical body of Christ is exactly and as closely as when the disciples were sitting with Christ at the inaugural Supper.

As Reformed, we might ask our Lutheran friends, "Was Christ distended in space at the inaugural meal. As the disciples at the bread and drank the cup with Christ seated next to them, were they physically in contact with some part of him in their mouths?" If there was a different sort of real presence of Christ at the inaugural Supper, then the memorial meals have all been of a different nature from the original.

Whether the Lutherans accept our concern or not, our concern is the integrity of Christ-in-two-natures, and the integrity of each nature; and the integrity of the Supper. In addition, we assert that the Ascension of Christ tells a certain kind of truth: that in the body/flesh, Christ isn't down on earth any more, and in order to be with him in that manner, we must go to heaven where he is in that nature.

We can do that while we are in the flesh only in spirit and by the Spirit; but it is still sweet communion. Yet, we have to step away from the Table periodically, and return time and again for a foretaste of the promised reunion. We argue: it is not for now to experience more than a virtual bodily encounter; but our one-way crossing the veil between life and death means an end to those fleeting, wistful moments.

We think the Lutheran idea tries to have more of heaven now than we've been promised (overrealized eschatology). We think it is formally a confusion of the Two Natures, because the human nature has been ubiquitized. And I know of one sincere Lutheran pastor who has admitted the propriety of bowing to the altar (on which sits the consecrated bread)--because that's literally the visibly-localized presence of Christ.

For the Lutheran, if Christ is not bodily present in the believer's mouth (and the unbeliever's, this is what unworthy partaking amounts to in their view) then he isn't "really" present. They see themselves as opposing "nominalism" in this way, and thence to a more sure connection to the church's "historic consensus."

This is, perhaps, the best way to understand Luther's insistence on the meaning of "is" (as in, this is my body). Christ's body was a particular thing with its own inherent reality (not merely a name or placeholder); therefore there could be no metaphoric meaning or intention (a deception, of a sort) in Christ's assertion. Rather, it had to be the case that here was no figure of speech; while at the same time, no transubstantiation of the bread. Communion with Christ's body had to be effected by means of the bread, thus Christ in the mouth.

Could Luther have found the real-but-spiritual presence of Calvin acceptable, against the memorialist (Zwinglian)? Some disputed evidence exists to say that he would have found (did find) it tolerable. I don't think that it's best to say the Lutherans "fail to distinguish" Christ's two natures, though they do fuse and cross-propagate the attributes of each to the other. Hopefully, this post serves to open up a broader perspective on what they aim to preserve (in relation to what the Reformed aim to preserve) by their formulation.

So then, Lutherans believe they are eating the physical body of Christ, that his human nature (physicality) along with his divine nature is ubiquitous? That he is everywhere bodily present? But didn’t he ascend to the right hand of the Father, where he remains until he comes again? Also, what causes Christ to come down and accompany the bread? Is it an incantation such as the RC priests employ? Last question. Is there any substantive difference between Rome and the Lutherans on this? While they claim no change in the properties of the bread they appear to claim that Christ’s physical body enters the mouth. It seems very Roman to me, if I’m understanding their position correctly.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So then, Lutherans believe they are eating the physical body of Christ, that his human nature (physicality) along with his divine nature is ubiquitous? That he is everywhere bodily present? But didn’t he ascend to the right hand of the Father, where he remains until he comes again? Also, what causes Christ to come down and accompany the bread? Is it an incantation such as the RC priests employ? Last question. Is there any substantive difference between Rome and the Lutherans on this? While they claim no change in the properties of the bread they appear to claim that Christ’s physical body enters the mouth. It seems very Roman to me, if I’m understanding their position correctly.

To the Lutheran, there does not seem to be any other possible way to commune with the physical body of Christ; other than by manducation. Obviously, we disagree, and offer up our proposal as to how (by description, not methodically).

Our Lutheran friends tend to accuse the Reformed of overanalysis and logical pressing for answers (in many departments) that go "too far." But when we say concerning the Supper, "We go to heaven and eat with Christ in the Spirit... we don't know how, it's just a mystery," they get mad; and say we're perverse, and hiding our rationalizations under a false appeal to mystery, and they have the plain teaching of Scripture (no mystery necessary!) that the flesh of Christ is ubiquitous.

This isn't (or shouldn't be) an uncharitable description of the Lutheran attitude toward the Reformed, just accurate. We are, to quote them, "sneaky (crafty) sacramentarians." At least the "gross sacramentarians" are quite distinguishable from them; but the sneaky ones... Oh, my! They describe Theodore Beza (Calvin's successor) as a "sacramanterian fanatic." They confess this, (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, VII.67). We should be far more charitable than that, but honest too.

For Lutherans, the Incarnation (and particularly the termination of Christ's state of humiliation) yields a full revelation of total communication of attributes from one nature to the other. The communicatio idiomatum in Lutheran theology differs from the Reformed understanding of the same, in that the Reformed argue such communication is found in or through the Person, possessed of both natures; whereas the Lutherans simply regard the communication as flowing directly from one nature to the other.

Christ's Ascension teaches us (the Reformed) something it does not teach the Lutheran. They do not interpret "heaven must receive him" (Act.3:21) in any way that will deny the axiom of Christ's carnal presence in the Supper.

Lutheran Supper administration should not be equated with Roman incantation. The Lutheran minister does not invoke or create the sacramental union between things above and below; but in the consecration the Word (of institution) is all. It is God and Christ who speaks, not the minister. It is an effectual union inside the bounds of the complete administration of the sacrament, and not so in any way divided from it. Thus, unlike Romanism, Lutheranism's consecrated element does not maintain it's divine character (but perhaps its sanctity?) outside the Supper event.

Lutherans are Protestants. Their views are demonstrably distinct from Rome's. Just as you want investigators to distinguish your views on baptism from Rome's, in spite of this or that superficial similarity; so also you must labor to discern the substantial differences between Lutheran views of the Supper from Rome's. Read their views, especially when they attack Rome's errors, to see what they define them as, and how they deny them. https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/lutheran-confessions

 

[timfost]

I'm using "Reformed" in the way of Calvin, the Confessions; and arguably in contrast to Zwingli and even Ch.Hodge.

Lutherans accuse Reformed of tending to Nestorianism.
Reformed accuse Lutherans of tending to Eutychianism. https://www.theopedia.com/eutychianism

Lutherans: Lord's Supper involves immediate communion with Christ (whole, not according to one nature or the other) by the mouth. The bread does not change; but Christ bodily accompanies it.
Reformed: Bread received in the mouth; Christ received spiritually (and really) in the heart.

Lutherans: Christ comes down to earth (bodily in fact) in the mystery of the Supper.
Reformed: Men are lifted (spiritually by the Spirit) to heaven and meet with Christ there in the Supper.

For Lutherans, a "real presence" can be nothing less than Christ immediately at hand, bodily and spiritually.
For Reformed, "spiritual presence" is as REAL as any other modality. Our communion with the physical body of Christ is exactly and as closely as when the disciples were sitting with Christ at the inaugural Supper.

As Reformed, we might ask our Lutheran friends, "Was Christ distended in space at the inaugural meal. As the disciples at the bread and drank the cup with Christ seated next to them, were they physically in contact with some part of him in their mouths?" If there was a different sort of real presence of Christ at the inaugural Supper, then the memorial meals have all been of a different nature from the original.

Whether the Lutherans accept our concern or not, our concern is the integrity of Christ-in-two-natures, and the integrity of each nature; and the integrity of the Supper. In addition, we assert that the Ascension of Christ tells a certain kind of truth: that in the body/flesh, Christ isn't down on earth any more, and in order to be with him in that manner, we must go to heaven where he is in that nature.

We can do that while we are in the flesh only in spirit and by the Spirit; but it is still sweet communion. Yet, we have to step away from the Table periodically, and return time and again for a foretaste of the promised reunion. We argue: it is not for now to experience more than a virtual bodily encounter; but our one-way crossing the veil between life and death means an end to those fleeting, wistful moments.

We think the Lutheran idea tries to have more of heaven now than we've been promised (overrealized eschatology). We think it is formally a confusion of the Two Natures, because the human nature has been ubiquitized. And I know of one sincere Lutheran pastor who has admitted the propriety of bowing to the altar (on which sits the consecrated bread)--because that's literally the visibly-localized presence of Christ.

For the Lutheran, if Christ is not bodily present in the believer's mouth (and the unbeliever's, this is what unworthy partaking amounts to in their view) then he isn't "really" present. They see themselves as opposing "nominalism" in this way, and thence to a more sure connection to the church's "historic consensus."

This is, perhaps, the best way to understand Luther's insistence on the meaning of "is" (as in, this is my body). Christ's body was a particular thing with its own inherent reality (not merely a name or placeholder); therefore there could be no metaphoric meaning or intention (a deception, of a sort) in Christ's assertion. Rather, it had to be the case that here was no figure of speech; while at the same time, no transubstantiation of the bread. Communion with Christ's body had to be effected by means of the bread, thus Christ in the mouth.

Could Luther have found the real-but-spiritual presence of Calvin acceptable, against the memorialist (Zwinglian)? Some disputed evidence exists to say that he would have found (did find) it tolerable. I don't think that it's best to say the Lutherans "fail to distinguish" Christ's two natures, though they do fuse and cross-propagate the attributes of each to the other. Hopefully, this post serves to open up a broader perspective on what they aim to preserve (in relation to what the Reformed aim to preserve) by their formulation.

Bruce,

As usual, I appreciate the balance and context you've brought here. Thank you!

 

[Susan777]

Bruce,

As usual, I appreciate the balance and context you've brought here. Thank you!