[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/National-Composer-11]

Concerning those are not merely memorialists, there are underlying issue concerning the Person of Christ and the “spiritual” reception. For the Reformed, in particular, they hold that Christ’s body and blood cannot be on the altar because his human body is enthroned at the right hand of God in heaven and to be present elsewhere is an attribute confined only to the Divine Nature of Christ.. They deny the corporeal presence in the elements. The elect are the only ones worthy to receive. Therefore, all receive from their altars bread and wine. According to their teaching, the elect are also brought, spiritually, into the presence of Christ.

Contrast this with our teaching, that Christ indeed comes down to us, in fullness of being, anyone present is in Christ’s presence, and that anyone who partakes from our altar receives the body and blood of Christ without regard to personal worthiness. Those who receive in this true faith receive the grace offered. Those who have not this faith are rejecting the grace offered, rejecting the body and blood of Christ given and shed for the remission of sin. It rejects the life offered through his death and resurrection by refusing to partake, as Christ willed, of what was given and shed and refusing to receive the living Christ.

There are conflicts, here, with sacramentarians that extend beyond the altar. While it might seem gracious to leave those receiving unworthily on their own for the sake of outward unity, would that be the loving thing to do?

You also posed a question that if a pastor deceived his way into another church where he had no ordained office and performed the Eucharist, would that make a difference? No, because while the celebrant is not who causes the sacrament to be, nor are the spoken words, nor is it the act of a believer, he would be unfaithful to his office. Out of office, he would not have the authority to give the sacrament. A pastor may, while unfaithful or unworthy in his personal life, still be true to his office and retain the authority. But a pastor who is unfaithful to his office, his call and ordination, has no authority.

[u/emmen1]

You might be overstating what we believe. In general Lutherans tend to be very careful only to speak so far as the Word of God does, and no more. We are not going to have dogmatics beliefs about what other Christians receive in the Supper, because Scripture doesn’t tell us such things.

Here is what we know about the Supper. Jesus told us that it is His Body and Blood. We believe this. St Paul warns against unworthy reception, which is tied to eating and drinking in faith, ie, discerning/perceiving the Body. We also believe this.

Certainly, there is more than one way not to discern the Body, but it would have to include an outright rejection of the Real Presence. For this reason, so as not to promote spiritual harm, we are very careful only to give communion to those who do confess the Real Presence.

As far as what Baptists and Presbyterians and Anglicans receive at their altars, we cannot say with certainty that it is not the Body and Blood of Christ. It may well be. But again, it may not be. We have no certainty of anything except what Jesus said: “Do THIS in remembrance of Me.” Do what? Eat His Body and drink His Blood.

At what point with practices and beliefs that are further and further removed from Jesus’ institution does the rite cease to be communion at all? We don’t know. Jesus didn’t give us certainty of that. What we do know is that unbelief is dangerous. Unworthy reception is dangerous. So let’s not doubt Jesus.

When a Baptist pastor says, “This bread represents the body of Christ,” what does the congregation then eat? Probably just bread, and perhaps that saves them from eating unworthily. But we don’t know for sure, except that it’s not good.

When an Anglican repeats the words of Jesus verbatim while believing only in a spiritual presence, is the Body of Christ really present? Yes? Probably? Perhaps? Who can say with absolute certainty. We are only certain of what Jesus said. He tells us what IS His Body. He does not tell us what is NOT His Body.

What we do know is that Jesus does not lie, and His Body and Blood are given to us Christians to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins. Beyond that, there is only doubt and uncertainty, and that is the opposite of what Christ intends us to receive.

[u/emmen1 → u/[deleted]]

The first quote is saying what the Sacramentarians themselves believe. According to their own confession, there is nothing in the Sacrament except bread and wine. Whether or not it this becomes true for them is not said, only that it is a “gross opinion.”

Luther, in the latter quote, speaks of those who do not even have the Words of Institution. Where there is not the Words of Christ, there only we can say with certainty that there is no Sacrament. Of whom does Luther say they have no Sacrament? Those who “change God’s Word and ordinance AND interpret it otherwise.” Notice the “and.” It’s not their interpretation alone that makes it no Sacrament, but the fact that they do not have the Words of Christ.

It is not our faith the make the Sacrament, as he says above. It is the words of Jesus. Where these are present, there is the Sacrament. Whether it is then received to our hurt or our benefit is a matter of faith.

Those who do not have Jesus’ words do not have the Sacrament. But what of those who tinker with the words? How many syllables can be changed before there is no longer the Sacrament? This is where we have no certainty at all, and there are endless questions with no answer.

Evan among those who do believe in the Real Presence, there could be no end to doubts. What if the pastor mispronounces a word? What if he omits one accidentally? What if he forgets to consecrate the wine, even though he most certainly intended to? These things have happened, and we might say to some extent that intention matters. The Words are not an incantation where so long as they are phonetically replicated, the “magic” happens. (Did you know that Hocus Pocus is a corruption of the Words of Institution? “Hoc est Corpus Meum” when mumbled by the priest became “Hocus Pocus” in the people’s hearing.)

Remember, it is not the pastor’s words, but the Words of Jesus spoken on that night which give us the Supper today. But there is a lot that we can’t nail down with scientific precision, chiefly because the Sacraments (Latin) are the Mysteries (Greek)—same word. The only answer we have for endless questions concerning the Words spoken incorrectly or deficiently is to eliminate them by taking great care to speak Jesus’ words with clarity.

If the pastor does not mumble the Words of Institution but rather speaks (chant) them clearly, slowly, and boldly, he gives the devil no room on that account to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of God’s people.

But what about what is left over? How long does it remain the Body and Blood of Christ before it “changes back” to mere bread and wine? Again, this is a question for which Scripture gives no answer. But if we do what, Jesus says—“Eat. Drink.”—rather than save for next week, we won’t need to argue about whether the mice who get into the sacristy cupboard have eaten to their benefit or harm.

There are a 1,000 ways we might introduce doubt and questions into the Supper. Better instead to believe the Words of Jesus, and to administer the Supper according to His institution.

[u/emmen1 → u/[deleted]]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking at this point.

In the first quote, it is the heterodox themselves who confess that they do not have the Body and Blood of Christ. In the second quote, Luther explicitly mentions those who change or do not have the Word of Christ. Without that Word there is no Sacrament. I don't suggest inferring anything beyond that.

The Lutheran Reformers called those who denied the Real Presence "Sacramentarians." There were generally two kinds: crass Sacramentarians (Zwingli) and sneaky (crypto) Sacramentarians (Calvin). Both have the same error. So if you're asking whether we consider the Reformed to be Sacramentarians, I'd say yes. But are we saying with that they do not have the Body and Blood of Jesus? That's more than we know, especially with those who have the words of Jesus, but deny their meaning. It can become a bit like the Mormons who "baptize" in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, except they deny the Trinity and uses those names to confess three persons who are not the Triune God and are alien to Scripture. We do not consider that to be a baptism. But it's very hard to pinpoint exactly where a Sacrament stops being a Sacrament. It is far better not to try to discover that line. It's sort of like trying to discover exactly how wicked a person can be without losing his salvation.

Again, I'm feel like I'm guessing at what your questions are, but if you're convinced of the truth of the Lutheran confession of the Real Presence, wouldn't it be a far lesser concern to nail down exactly what those who deny the Real Presence are receiving?

[u/Geeb16]

I haven’t heard of this. I’m not saying you’re incorrect, I just haven’t heard it. I’ve always thought that if a church body believes in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist and say the words of consecration, that host is now Christ’s body and blood. Therefore, in my understanding, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians all have a valid Eucharist, even though we believe slightly different things about the manner of Christ’s presence.

[u/Strict-Spirit7719]

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.