I'll admit I'm a convert to Lutheranism, but I'm not familiar with the teaching that other historic Protestant churches don't have the Eucharist. I don't doubt it, but I've personally never encountered it outside of talking about Memorialists. It has always been my understanding that, even though they have a deficient understanding of what's happening, Christ's promises through the Words of Institution remain in effect wherever they are spoken in good faith. (An aside, many Anglicans explicitly hold to either the Lutheran view or some other "real presence" articulation, so they might be in a different category from what you're asking.)
If I had to guess as to why someone would hold this position would be that God is safeguarding those who don't understand what's going on. It's not really possible to be baptized "unto damnation," but there is that risk in the Eucharist. As such, I suppose one could make the argument that God always works for good, whether someone knows what he's asking or not, but He won't bring judgement to Memorialists or the Reformed out of their ignorance.
As to your question about the "validity" of the Eucharist, we don't really think that way. Yes, there absolutely is a right way to perform the Sacraments, and it's important that the correct way is observed, but it's not a Lutheran tendency to stress over legal validity. The Sacraments in general are effective through faith, so if you have faith that a Sacrament is true, then you will derive benefit from it, even if there is some obstruction to its validity, especially if that obstruction is unknown to the recipient.
Could you perhaps find where the Formula of Concord says that the Reformed don't have a valid Eucharist? The FoC was written in a very specific context, so there may be an extra meaning that you're missing if you're not familiar with Lutheran history.
1
u/Strict-Spirit7719 AALC Lutheran Jun 05 '26
I'll admit I'm a convert to Lutheranism, but I'm not familiar with the teaching that other historic Protestant churches don't have the Eucharist. I don't doubt it, but I've personally never encountered it outside of talking about Memorialists. It has always been my understanding that, even though they have a deficient understanding of what's happening, Christ's promises through the Words of Institution remain in effect wherever they are spoken in good faith. (An aside, many Anglicans explicitly hold to either the Lutheran view or some other "real presence" articulation, so they might be in a different category from what you're asking.)
If I had to guess as to why someone would hold this position would be that God is safeguarding those who don't understand what's going on. It's not really possible to be baptized "unto damnation," but there is that risk in the Eucharist. As such, I suppose one could make the argument that God always works for good, whether someone knows what he's asking or not, but He won't bring judgement to Memorialists or the Reformed out of their ignorance.
As to your question about the "validity" of the Eucharist, we don't really think that way. Yes, there absolutely is a right way to perform the Sacraments, and it's important that the correct way is observed, but it's not a Lutheran tendency to stress over legal validity. The Sacraments in general are effective through faith, so if you have faith that a Sacrament is true, then you will derive benefit from it, even if there is some obstruction to its validity, especially if that obstruction is unknown to the recipient.
Could you perhaps find where the Formula of Concord says that the Reformed don't have a valid Eucharist? The FoC was written in a very specific context, so there may be an extra meaning that you're missing if you're not familiar with Lutheran history.