XXVIII. Of the Lord’s Supper

You may also like...

18 Responses

  1. What? No comments yet? MLD must not be awake.

  2. I know we’ve been over this before, but could someone please explain to me again the difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation? And what makes something a sacrament as opposed to just an observance?

  3. Nonnie says:

    As I understand it, in the Anglican communion, God is doing the work whereas in the “low church” (as evangelical, non denominational churches are called,…and not a negative term) in those churches when we “take” communion, it is something WE are doing out of obedience to “remember.” It is something we DO, rather than something God graciously bestows to a “sinner not worthy to receive, but just speak the word and I shall be healed .” Communion is GOD’s doing, rather than man’s “remembrance.” That is my understanding.

  4. Reuben says:

    Nonnie, articulated better than I could have put it. Well said!

  5. Babylon's Dread says:

    We make a mistake when we lift the Lord’s Supper from act of eating and the meaning of eating food. Our story began in Eden with eating from trees. Our story ends in New Jerusalem with a tree of life and a Supper. Throughout scripture to eat with someone is to unite with them in some form of a covenant.

    Whenever you start with forms you end with superstitions. Anyway, the statement above does nothing to offend my thoughts. But in our ordinary rustic primitive non liturgical way of sharing the supper we are often told by those from historic liturgical traditions that we are NOT REALLY having communion. In other words we didn’t invoke the proper words or rituals.

    All I know is that we declare ourselves to be eating his flesh and drinking his blood with thanksgiving and by faith.

    Peace and mercy to all.

  6. CK,

    In transubstantiation the elements are believed to physically change into the body and blood.
    In consubstantiation the elements remain in their natural state, but the body and blood are said to be present along side them.

  7. Alex says:

    Dunno on this one. Seems pretty fanciful and non-literal, but who knows. I take the Sacraments hoping they’re real, but intellectually, it is doubtful as to whether or not they are some miracle of Jesus actual flesh and blood, more a time of “remembering” and a time to reflect on personal sins (as subjective as that is due to one’s Conscience and what they consider as sin).

    It’s probably a cracker and some grape juice, and it may mean something, it may not. I figure it can’t hurt to take it hoping it’s real and doing some self-examination in the process and remembering Jesus and appealing to Him for mercy if He is real.

  8. Lutherans reject both trans & con.

  9. Most don’t understand “remember” – like “I forgot. It is about Jesus remembering.

    In the OT, when God remembered his people, he was delivering blessing. When God “forgot” his people – like in captivity, he was dealing judgment.

    We do it as Jesus’ remembrance – not ours. (makes all the difference.

    But the question remains, do what?? eat cracker and juice or eat his body and blood?

  10. Not much traction here. So let’s try this one – from the “killing” thread, how many over there, if you were in the situation would take communion from Chuck Smith?

  11. The Lord’s Supper, for me, is slowing down, taking stock of the blessings and provisions in hand, looking around and realizing the interconnectedness of the humans in the room, finding us all profoundly part of it, in Jesus’ presence.

    Plain & simple.

  12. Xenia says:

    would take communion from Chuck Smith?<<<

    If I were a Protestant and believed CC theology concerning communion, I would.

    Since I'm not and I don't, I wouldn't.

  13. Xenia,
    The point was, would the folks who are beating the stuffing out of Chuck on the other thread – would they. Or would the institute their own form of “closed communion.”

  14. Lutheran says:

    MLD,

    Where did you get that the Lutheran view isn’t consubstantiation? True, Luther never used the term but that’s what I’ve heard it called from several sources.

    I’ve also heard the Lutheran view of the Eucharist described as like the “burning bush.”

    Here’s an interesting website that gives 5 different views of the Holy Supper. The EO version looks pretty darn close to what Lutherans confess in the sense that how it “works” is a mystery.

    http://christianityinview.com/eucharist.html

    http://www.pastormattrichard.com/2011/11/is-god-bush-examining-lutheran-view-of.html

  15. Lutheran,
    Both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation have the bread and the wine changing forms. Trans as most people know has the bread cease being bread and becoming body – and the wine ceases to be wine and becomes blood.

    Con has the bread not ceasing to be bread nor the wine ceasing to be wine but the bread becomes bread and body and the wine becomes wine and blood. Consubstantiation has been a false label for the Lutheran position … even to the point that many Lutherans are confused.

    The Lutheran position is that “in – with – and under” the bread and wine, the true body and blood are present. The elements do not change, but as you consume, you are indeed consuming the true body and blood.

    The article by Matt Richards explains it perfectly. God was in the bush, but he did not become the bush.

    Matt Richards is a great new (to the public) voice in Lutheranism. FYI, he is in the middle of colloquy to become LCMS.

  16. Lutheran says:

    Thanks for the clarification. I don’t really see the difference, but thanks for trying.

    I think Matt is the guy who was recently looking for evangelicals who became Lutherans for his doctoral thesis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.