• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Concerning the Sacramental Union in the Lord's SupperPr. Heath R. Curtis I. Summary of my TeachingMy teaching is rigidly biblical. I take Jesus at his Word. When he says that the bread is His Body and the wine is His Blood, I believe him. His Word makes the sacramental union, not any human action of receiving, elevating, chanting, etc..Furthermore, I wish to avoid "all presumptuous, frivolous, blasphemous questions" (FC SD VII.127)regarding fixing the moment and duration of the sacramental union. However, to say that the presence of Christ, i.e. the sacramental union, does not take effect until the elements are consumed is to change the Word of Christ from "This is My body" to "This will be My body." Therefore, I deny that only bread and wine sit on the altar after Our Lord has spoken his Word of consecration over the elements through hiscalled and ordained servant in a divine service where the intent is to conduct the Lord's Supper accordingto the Lord's institution through its whole action. To ask such questions as "which syllable makes thepresence" and so on are precisely those "presumptuous, frivolous, blasphemous questions" which are to be avoided.Regarding the sacramental union and elements not consumed during the celebration in which they areconsecrated I believe the following. As in fixing the precise instant of the beginning of the sacramentalunion, I believe it is "presumptuous, frivolous, and blasphemous" to seek its end. Rather, I agree with thehistoric Lutheran practice of consuming all the consecrated elements at the celebration in which they  were consecrated. If this is absolutely not feasible, I agree with the rubrics of our Church which have beenin force since 1955, which state that all consecrated wine should be reverently poured into the earth andall consecrated bread should be reserved for the next communion and never mingled with unconsecrated bread. I know that some Lutherans have dared to say that after the very end of the distribution theconsecrated elements are simply bread and wine. I believe that this is introducing speculation and"presumptuous, frivolous, and blasphemous questions." We certainly have no Word from Our Lord which would revoke His sacramental presence (This is my Body until. . .) and in the case where the consecratedhosts (and in the parish where I serve, and many others, consecrated wine as well) are reserved fordistribution to the sick and homebound by laymen or for the next weekly celebration how can we even say that the distribution of those elements is at an end? Therefore, to avoid all such "presumptuous, frivolous, blasphemous questions" we should preferably follow the instructions of the Lord (Take, eat; Take, drink)and consume all elements at the celebration in which they were consecrated; elements reserved fordistribution to the sick and homebound cannot but be treated as all other consecrated elements.I deny that the Words of Institution may be used as a magical formula to effect the presence of Christ for apurpose alien to Christ's institution. Thus, for example, the Words do not effect the presence of Christ when they are spoken by Satanists in a "Black Mass," or by a papist priest when he speaks the Words apartfrom any context or intention of ever distributing the elements (that is, of having the Lord's
 Supper 
)
butrather solely for the purpose of adoring the Eucharistic Christ [note in 2009: to be fair, I don't think this isreally their practice. I think even what is put in a monstrance is eventually consumed], or by a Zwinglian who uses the Words of Institution and even distributes the elements but openly proclaims before the"celebration" that the Lord's body is really absent from the elements. II. Support for my Teaching from the Bible, the Confessions, and orthodox Lutheran teachers. What follows are texts supporting my belief with my commentary.
The Words of Institution from Matthew26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, andgave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." 27 And he took acup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of 
 
you; 28
 for 
this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29Our Lord does not make his Word of consecration contingent on the disciples' eating anddrinking: he does not say, "If (or When) you eat this it will be my Body and Blood," butsimply, "Take, eat, this is my Body; this is my Blood." Indeed, here in Matthew 26:28 theword "for" (
 gar 
in Greek) indicates that the blood of Christ is distributed and drunk not"in order that" it be His blood, but because it already is His blood.I Corinthians 10:16"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The breadwhich we break, is not a communion of the body of Christ?"Here Paul clearly says that the cup is a communion of the blood of Christ even when it is
blessed 
with the Words of Christ, not only when it is consumed. Likewise, the bread is a communion of the body of Christ when it is
broken
not only when it is consumed. Indeed, Paul does not evenmention eating and drinking here!Augsburg Confession, Article X"1] Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, andare distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teachotherwise."Please note that the Body and Blood are present when
distributed 
, not merely when consumed.Apology Article X
"55]
And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For thecanon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the breadmay be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be nota silly writer, says distinctly that
bread is not a mere figure, but 
 
56]
 
is truly changed into flesh
."Here we can see that the Confessions even speak of a "change" (Metabasis) of the elements,while, of course, denying the Roman teaching of a transubstatiation wherein Aristotelian theoriesabout substance and accidence are imported to say that the bread ceases to exist. The commentsof our sister church body, The Lutheran Church-Canada are apropos here (
 Holy Communion:Terms and Practices.
from the LCC's CTCR, 1999):
"Can we say that the bread and wine are "changed". into theBody and Blood of Christ? Roman Catholics do, talking about"transubstantiation". (the bread and wine changing into theBody and Blood) and so do the Eastern Orthodox. Lutheransnormally have not used the term change, but have approv-ingly quoted those who use the term.
2
But can the term beconsidered wrong? In the Supper is something present whichwas not there before? What?
 
So, a change does take place. Bread and wine are not changedinto something else. Something else, however, is now present,as the bread and wine become the vehicles for the Body andBlood which Christ gives us.
2
Apol. X.2, citing "Vulgarius". (the eleventh century theologian Theophylact),who notes that the bread "is truly changed into flesh." Martin Chemnitz, one of the authors of the Formula of Concord and ardent defender of the Real Presence,demonstrates how the term, if used, must be understood. He studiously avoidsthe term when contrasting the Lutheran view with Rome's view, while at the sametime noting that Christ gives us something that was not there before: "Therefore itis not a man, the minister, who by his consecration and blessing makes breadand wine into the body and blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, by means of HisWord, is present in this action, and by means of the Word of His institution, whichis spoken through the mouth of the minister, He brings it about that the bread isHis body and the cup His blood . . . ." Martin Chemnitz, Examination of the Councilof Trent Part II, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia, 1978), 229. However,later, as he contrasts the ancient Church's understanding with the Romanunderstanding, he notes (and accepts) the concept, saying "The ancients makemention simply of mutation and conversion of the elements in the Lord's Supper.
This they understand and explain this way, that after consecration it is no longer common bread and ordinary wine but is the Eucharist, which is made up of twothings, an earthly [bread and wine] and a heavenly [Christ's body and blood], avisible and an invisible
. . . " (254). To use the word "change", with thatunderstanding is certainly permissible."
As our brothers in the LCC have ably shown us here, the main author of the Formula of Concord,Martin Chemnitz, teaches that
after consecration
it is no longer common bread and ordinarywine, but the Eucharist of the Lord's Body and Blood. We turn now to consider Chemnitz' other great confession of this doctrine in the Book of Concord itself.Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, VII.73-90This crucial section of the Formula will be treated paragraph by paragraph with my commentsfollowing each paragraph.
73]
Since a misunderstanding and dissension among some teachers of the Augsburg Confession also has occurred concerning consecration andthe common rule, that nothing is a sacrament without the appointed use[or divinely instituted act], we have made a fraternal and unanimousdeclaration to one another also concerning this matter to the followingpurport,
74]
namely,
that not the word or work of any man producesthe true presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Supper,whether it be the merit or recitation of the minister, or the eating anddrinking or faith of the communicants; but all this should be ascribed
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...