Communion.

[sweetpea316]

Now that I look back on my first communion as a Lutheran, I don't think I ever really truly understood it, (the whole bread/wine, body/blood aspect)... but I do believe the teaching of transubstantiation now 100% and can't wait till I can receive the Eucharist! I do have a question though...

I'm looking at my Lutheran catechism book to see what exactly it says, and their interpretation of "real presence" or consubstantiation is a bit confusing to me. They use Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-24. and Luke 22:19,20...the accounts of the Lord's Supper...as their Scriptural evidence of course. I guess I'm just not seeing where within these passages they get the understanding of it being actual bread and wine still, AND the body and blood...rather than the body and blood with the appearance of bread and wine.

Also, in each of the passages, it says that Jesus took the bread/cup, gave thanks, and gave it to the disciples... When He "gave thanks" was He consecrating the bread and wine into the body and blood? I dunno. It just makes me think of mass when the priest takes the bread & wine, consecrates it, and then gives the body and blood to us, the 'disciples'. Am I totally off? Feel free to set me straight.

I'm sure that I'll learn about all of this when I start RCIA, but I've been asked about it by some people already and would love to learn about it now and defend the truth of it. I have some more thoughts on all of this, but I'll save those for a bit later.

Thanks! God bless+

[Brother Adam]

Its confusing to you and me both, and the whole lot of us, because consubstantation isn't logical. Remember that Trans - substance is a change in the substance of bread and wine to Jesus' body and blood and only the outer accidential apperance of bread and wine remain (think of Jesus as a priest forever after the order of Melchezidek as it says in Hebrews). con - substance means Jesus is with the bread and wine, but the bread and wine remain, and Jesus is with in and under the substance of the bread and wine. The substance of bread and wine cannot remain and be the substance of Jesus Christ. The theology of when exactly the consencration takes place is a complex one, and one of the principle reasons for the split between the East and West in 1054AD. Suffice it to say, as those more learned than I am will tell you, the consencration takes place when the priest says "Take and eat....take and drink..." as Jesus did. You will usually hear bells ringing at mass when this happens.

[blovedwolfofgod]

The word Eucharist means thanksgiving. So, maybe that answers that part of the question.

As for your other question, there are places where the Eucharist is referred to as the bread and wine while being equated with the Body of the Lord (1 Cor. 10:16)

And then there is the passage in John 6:63 where Jesus talks about the how the spirit is life and the flesh is of no avail. If you dont read it in the context of the Greek, you are likely to miss the the analogy to faith and logic. Essentially, I think its saying (feel free to disagree if Im insane guys) that faith [in the Eucharistic promise] gives life, but logic is no avail... cause logically how could you discern that a consecrated host was not bread and wine if it werent for faith? If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck, right? Logically, yes. So, I think that denominations take an overly logical approach (combined with cognitive dissonance) to that verse and the Eucharist in general.

So, thats all I got for ya! Hopefully it helps?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Wasn't cosubstantiation actually the product of a compromise between Luther and Zwingli?

[phatcatholic]

sweetpea..................the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) has a great christian encyclopedia on their website that may be helpful for you in discovering what Lutherans believe and why:
[url="http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/"]http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/[/url]

in their entry on [url="http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=g&word=GRACE.MEANSOF"][b]Means of Grace, IV., 3[/b][/url] consubsantiation is explained:[list]3. [i]Real Presence.[/i] The words of institution, “Take, eat; this is My body,” clearly state: “With this bread I give you My body.” So these words are explained 1 Co 10:16. There is no transubstantiation* of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, nor any consubstantiation* or impanation.* In, with, and under the bread and wine a communicant, also an unbelieving communicant (1 Co 11:27–29), receives Christ's true body, given into death, and His true blood, shed for sins. This is the point of controversy bet. Luths. and Ref. The question is not whether Christ is present acc. to His divine nature in the Sacrament, or whether the soul by faith is united with Christ (spiritual eating and drinking), or whether the believing communicant receives the merits of Christ's shed blood by faith (all of which is acknowledged as true by both Luths. and Ref.). In Luth. terminology the eating and drinking of Christ's body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine is called sacramental* eating and drinking. The Ref. deny that the words of instit. should be taken in a literal sense, or that in, with, and under the bread and wine the true body and blood of Christ are really present (Real Presence, a mystery). The Ref. teach instead the real absence of Christ's body and blood in the Sacrament by resorting to a figurative, or symbolical, interpretation. Karlstadt* sought the figure in “this,” H. Zwingli* in “is” (making “is” mean “represents”), J. Calvin* and others in “body” (making “body” mean “the sign of My body”), and others (e.g., W. Bucanus,* B. Keckermann,* and H. Zanchi*) in the entire statement. The multifarious attempts to pervert the proper sense of the words are but so many evidences of the persistent refusal of the words to yield to perversion. See also Altar Fellowship; Lutheran Confessions, A 2 (b); Sacramental Union.
[/list]all of section IV. here wil probably be helpful.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[dUSt]

This isn't answering your question, but I thought I'd share an analogy of how transubstantiation was explained to us parents in a recent first communion meeting...

[b][u]Substance[/u][/b]
Apple

[b][u]Accidents:[/u][/b]
Red
Crisp
Round
Shiny

Now, if we put the apple in a blender, the accidents change, but the substance remains exactly the same:

[b][u]Substance[/u][/b]
Apple > Apple

[b][u]Accidents:[/u][/b]
[s]Red[/s] > Brownish
[s]Crisp[/s] > Mushy
[s]Round[/s] > Liquid
[s]Shiny[/s] > Dull

Now, let's look at the Eucharist:

[b][u]Substance[/u][/b]
Bread

[b][u]Accidents:[/u][/b]
Round
White
Bland

When God changes the bread into His body, he does the opposite of what we did with the apple. The substance changes, but the accidents remain exactly the same:

[b][u]Substance[/u][/b]
[s]Bread[/s] > Jesus

[b][u]Accidents:[/u][/b]
Round > Round
White > White
Bland > Bland

Now, the Lutheran teaching doesn't really make sense. Neither the substance nor the accidents change, so the bread is still bread. It might look something like this:

[b][u]Substance[/u][/b]
[s]Bread[/s] > Bread + Jesus

[b][u]Accidents:[/u][/b]
Round > Round
White > White
Bland > Bland

No changing is taking place. Somehow, they are "adding" Jesus, which doesn't seem like it makes sense Biblically.