Article X on the Lord's Supper

of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession

and Melanchthon's Curious Addendum

Revised August 18, 2006

Introduction

Admittedly, Article X of the Apology is one of the briefest. The reason for this is that the Roman Catholic theologians who wrote the Confutation against the Augsburg Confession did not object to what the Lutherans said about the Lord's Supper in their brief confession presented at Augsburg. Therefore it is no shock that the Apology is also brief regarding the teaching that would later become a major controversy, not only with the Papists, but the Sacramentarians. Fredrick Bente, in his Historical Introduction to the Symbolical Books reports: "Finally in the middle of April, (Melanchthon wrote) to Bucer: 'My Apology has appeared, in which, in my opinion, I have treated the articles of Justification, Repentance, and several others in such a manner that our opponents will find themselves heavily burdened. I have said little of the Eucharist." Bente, p.42

Clearly there were already evident some differences with Rome about the Eucharist, but like Rome, the Lutherans did not want to open up a new and different topic of disagreement as is clear from the Article itself.

Bente in describing the Moderate Tone of the Apology quotes Melanchthon's Preface that his hopes to achieve unity with Rome at some future date caused him to retain the "form of the customarily received doctrine" as much as possible. Bente concludes this section with this sentence: "This irenic feature is perhaps most prominent in the 10^th article, Of the Lord's Supper, where Melanchthon, in order to satisfy the opponents as to the orthodoxy of the Lutherans in the doctrine of the Real Presence, emphasizes the agreement in such a manner that he has been misunderstood as endorsing also the Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation." Bente, p. 46

Now, to be clear, Melanchthon does not endorse Transubstantiation, but he quotes the Canon of the Greek Mass and Vulgarius which do mention "change into" the body of Christ. Phillip Schaaf chronicles well Melanchthon's doctrinal devolution in an excerpt in Appendix A.

Melanchthon's desire to conciliate the Romans is clear. Bente on p.43 writes, "Koestlin is of the opinion that Luther thought of writing an Apology of his own, because he was not satisfied with Melanchthon's. (Martin Luther 2, 382.) However, if this view is correct, it certainly cannot apply to Melanchthon's revised Apology, to which Luther in 1533 expressly confessed himself, but to the first draft at Augsburg, in which, e.g., the 10^th article seems to endorse the concomitance doctrine. (Lehre und Wehre 1918, 385)" (italics emphasis added)

Again, this endorsement is not done plainly and clearly by Philip in the revised Article X, but only in his introduction to the long quote from Cyril in which he says that Cyril teaches "that Christ is corporally offered us in the Supper." This can be understood in the proper way, if we take it to mean that "Christ's body is offered" in the same sense that we understand "the bodily presence of Christ" (the presence of Christ's true body) phrases in the other Confessions. Cyril also does make reference to "Christ in us ... by natural participation" in the excerpt, a phrase used in defining Concomitance among the Romans.

The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Concomitance

For a popular teaching on Concomitance a Roman Catholic Priest writes: "For the Latin Church the defining theology comes from Aquinas (b. 1224 A.D) and a theological concept known as "concomitance." The basic understanding is this: what the nature of a thing is reflects the entirety of the thing. Here's what he says:

"It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: "This is My body," or, "This is My blood." But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind."

To put this in practice we can say that in a living being the body cannot exist without the blood. Jesus is a "living being" and, therefore, all of him is present. Because his height, weight, skin tone, eye color, etc. are not visible (being accidents) they are still there by concomitance."

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=11778 (A Roman Catholic Web Forum)

The Council of Trent and the Catholic Catechism present more theological details and are included as Appendices B and C.

Certainly Melanchthon's introduction and Cyril's quote do not negate the definitive dogma of the Article that "the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and are tendered with the those things which are seen, bread and wine...." This unambiguous dogmatic formula is repeated word for word at the end of Article X, too. These echo the simple dogmatic statement of the Augsburg Confession: "... the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present and are distributed to those who eat in the Supper of our Lord...."

(The diagram above was taken from a High School level religion text book used at Central Catholic High School in San Antonio, Tx. It shows the Roman belief that Jesus Himself is in the chalice and the host as well as in the tabernacle.  This belief is based on their unique interpretation of Jesus' own Words of Institution; an interpretation Lutherans reject as contrary to the plain and simple words.)

The Last Sentence of the Apology Article X

So the doctrine of the Lutherans is clear. What then is the purpose of the last sentence of the Latin version of Article X? "And we speak of the presence of the living Christ; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6,9."

Is the purpose of this sentence to bolster the idea that the Lutherans accepted the concomitance doctrine of Aquinas that the "entire Christ" is present in the elements in His body and blood? If so, it runs completely contrary to the unambiguous dogmatic formula used in Article X that "the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present and are tendered with the those things which are seen, bread and wine...." Nothing is said of the "entire Christ" here. Whatever the meaning it cannot be contrary to the objections raised to the first draft of the Apology at Augsburg that is cited as an example above which appeared to endorse concomitance..

There are a number of textual and contextual problems with this last sentence.

First, Kolb/Wingert insert an unwarranted "Moreover" at the beginning of this last sentence. That implies a connection with the foregoing. Triglotta and Tappert, translating, literally do not have the "moreover." The Latin has "Et," and the German "Und." Both should be translated with a simple " And," meaning "Also" or "In addition." German has "überdies" or "auszerdem" and other words to connect the following sentence logically with the preceding.

Second, this sentence is disjointed and foreign to the context. It seems almost an afterthought. Certainly without the artificially inserted "moreover" the lack of a preceding clear referent becomes even more confusing. And the subject of the sentence, that Christ lives, is not at all an issue between Rome and the Reformers.

Third, the German translation has "living body" ("des lebendiges Leibes"), not "Living Christ." Why the distinction is made one cannot be certain. However, if "Living Christ along with His body and blood in the bread and wine" is what Melanchthon meant to emphasize, it lends credibility to the idea that he was "soft" on the doctrine of Concomitance. But this would also mean he was going against the clearly stated teaching in the same article. This would not pass muster with those who approved the Apology nor with Justus Jonas who did the German translation.

Fourth, the Augsburg Confession has nothing about "the presence of Christ" at all. The emphasis is simply on the presence of the "true body and blood of Christ under the form of bread and wine." Philip is defending nothing in this Article, and certainly not with the enigmatic insertion of this sentence.

Fifth, the "living Christ" is not mentioned before in Ap. X as a possible referent. Christ could be a referent as shown below, but the emphasis on "living" is contextually difficult to justify.

Sixth, exactly where he is "talking about" the living Christ in Ap X is not clear. The only sensible connection that puts the best construction on this is to suggest that Melanchthon is referring back to the One who gave that "doctrine received in the entire church." He is certainly the risen and living Christ who dies no more.

Seventh, the Romans 6:9 passage that is quoted is from a Baptismal section in which the Apostle is encouraging moral purity because the Christian has been united with the death of Christ in his Baptism. The relevance of this passage is confusing in its Apology X context. It has nothing to do with the Lord's Supper, other than a common connection to "death" which has no power over Christ any longer. Still the emphasis in the passage is on the ever-livingness of Christ, not on His presence anywhere, much less in the Sacrament. Yet, as will be seen later, there is a definite connection of this passage to the Roman doctrine of Concomitance. Just one example from the Roman priest's web forum quoted earlier will serve to demonstrate that this is not a foreign idea in Rome. "To put this in practice (to be practical about this) we can say that in a living being the body cannot exist without the blood. Jesus is a "living being" and, therefore, all of him is present."

The German translation of Article X has a long insertion citing a number of Greek and Latin liturgies that clearly speak of the body and blood being present, but no mention of Christ's presence, in the bread and wine. The concluding remark of Justus Jonas is "With the Canon of the Mass and the citation from Theophylact we must only testify as the text of the tenth article clearly shows, the Real Presence of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine; whatever goes beyond this position is obviously not the teaching of the Apology." (My translation.)

Bente calls attention to the cooperation that Melanchthon gave in the Jonas' work: "The (German) translation of Jonas is not a literal reproduction of the Latin original, but a version with numerous independent amplifications. Also, Melanchthon had a share in this work." Bente, p. 43 Apparently, then, Philip consented to the final concluding statement of Jonas that specifies that anything ("whatever") which goes beyond this position is not the dogma of the Apology. Now it is clear that "whatever" refers not only to the novel claims of the Sacramentarians, but to "whatever" old, new and original notions contrary to the two definitive portions of the Apology at the beginning and end of Article X may be proclaimed.

The question is, "Was Melanchthon in his phrasing of Article X, last sentence, throwing out an appeasement sop to the Papist theologians who wrote the Confutation and were surely to attack the Reformer's doctrine again after the Apology appeared?" Was he deliberately diverting attention away from the differences on the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar that were becoming clearer and clearer so that the focus would be on the Articles of Justification and Repentance? Was he laying peaceful groundwork for later Articles that would discuss some differences such as Two Kinds and the Sacrifice of the Mass?

What Philip's intent was in adding this last sentence was, we may not be able to discover. One thing is certain, it is a confusing and ambiguous addendum to the clear dogmatic statements on the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine.

The Clear and Simple Word of God Confessed in the Symbols

The dogmatic statements on the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine were accurate representations of the clear and simple Word of God regarding what was present in the bread and wine. That Word of God was repeatedly designated as Christ's Words of Institution.

Luther relates how he began to question the Roman source of true teaching on the Sacrament.

Some time ago, when I was drinking in scholastic theology, the learned Cardinal of Cambrai⁵⁹ gave me food for thought in his comments on the fourth book of the Sentences.⁶⁰ He argues with great acumen that to hold that real bread and real wine, and not merely their accidents,⁶¹ are present on the altar, would be much more probable and require fewer superfluous miracles�if only the church had not decreed otherwise. When I learned later what church it was that had decreed this, namely the Thomistic⁶²�that is, the Aristotelian church�I grew bolder, and alter floating in a sea of doubt,⁶³ I at last found rest for my conscience in the above view, namely, that it is real bread and real wine, in which Christ�s real flesh and real blood are present in no other way and to no less a degree than the others assert them to be under their accidents. I reached this conclusion because I saw that the opinions of the Thomists, whether approved by pope or by council, remain only opinions, and would not become articles of faith even if an angel from heaven were to decree otherwise [Gal. 1:8]. For what is asserted without the Scriptures or proven revelation may be held as an opinion, but need not be believed. But this opinion of Thomas hangs so completely in the air without support of Scripture or reason that it seems to me he knows neither his philosophy nor his logic.

59 Pierre d�Ailly (1350�1420), a pupil of Ockham, influenced Luther greatly. He was chairman of that session of the Council of Constance which examined and condemned John Huss in 1415. Luther is referring to d� Ailly�s Questiones quarti libri sententiarum, quest. 6, E; folio cclxiv a.

60 Famous medieval textbook of theology, compiled circa 1150 by Peter Lombard (d. 1160), and containing brief statements or �sentences� of the main arguments pro and con with respect to the principal themes in Christian doctrine. The fourth book treats of the sacraments in general.

61 The qualifies which, in medieval thought, were held to adhere to the invisible �substance,� and together with it, form the object. In transubstantiation the �substance� of the bread and wine was changed into the �substance� of Christ�s body and blood, while only the �accidents� or �form� of the bread and wine (such as shape, color, and taste) remained.

62 The name refers to Thomas Aquinas (1225�1274), a Dominican, greatest of the scholastic theologians, still regarded as the foremost doctrinal authority in the Roman Catholic church.

63 inter sacrum et saxum. In his Adagia, Erasmus says the phrase is used of those who in their perplexity are carried to the point of grave danger. CL 1, 438 n. 29.

Luther, M. 1999, c1959. Vol. 36: Luther's works, vol. 36 : Word and Sacrament II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Fortress Press: Philadelphia, Babylonian Captivity of the Church, p. 28

Luther's hermeneutical principle, in opposition to Thomas and other allegorical interpreters,  is also stated clearly: "Accept the Word in its simplest sense."  This applies also to the Words of Institution, as well as to all the Scriptures.

But there are good grounds for my view, and this above all�no violence is to be done to the words of God, whether by man or angel. They are to be retained in their simplest meaning as far as possible. Unless the context manifestly compels it, they are not to be understood apart from their grammatical and proper sense, lest we give our adversaries occasion to make a mockery of all the Scriptures.

Luther, M. 1999, c1959. Vol. 36: Luther's works, vol. 36 : Word and Sacrament II (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works. Fortress Press: Philadelphia, Babylonian Captivity of the Church, p. 30

These words of Jesus were not regarded as dark, obscure, incomplete or insufficient by the Reformers, but quite the opposite. They were clear enough to base their teaching and preaching on.

In The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Heinrich Schmid, D.D. quotes Quenstedt, (page 570) (my emphases added) http://www.ctsfw.edu/etext/Schmid/DoctrinalTheology/dtelc402.txt

In order to avoid all misconception, it is added with special emphasis, that only the body and blood of Christ, and not the whole Christ, body and soul, are united with the bread and wine; hence there is a difference between the presence of Christ and the participation of the body and blood of Christ.

QUEN. (IV, 200): "It is one thing that the whole Christ is present in the Holy Supper, and another that the whole Christ or the celestial object is united with the element of bread and wine, and thus also the whole (Christ) is sacramentally eaten. The former we affirm, the latter we deny. For we say that the body of Christ only is united with the bread, and the blood with the wine, and sacramentally received by the mouth of the body, but that the whole Christ is received spiritually by the mouth of faith."

That the Confessors did not go further than the Scriptures in defining the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine is clear from the defining portions of the various Articles. A summary of those definitive parts is included later in this paper under the heading: "The Clear Dogmatic Statements of the Other Symbols on the Real Presence."

Clarification from the Smalcald Articles

The confusion and ambiguity of this last sentence in Article X of the Apology is cleared up completely by the Smalcald Articles which Luther himself was instructed to write. Article VI deals with the Sacrament of the Altar. It is clear from Bente's history, that Article VI was the most carefully discussed and clearly drawn up Article in the Solid Declaration, and also the most divisive. A number of theologians refused to sign because of disagreement with this article, though they claimed they had just had no authority to sign.

The same spirit that seemed to possess Philip in 1530 when he wrote the Apology was with him in 1537 as Luther wrote the Smalcald Article. Bente notes: "Melanchthon's irenic spirit is also revealed in his attitude to the adoption of the Smalcald Articles."He desired more freedom with regard to both the Romanists and the Reformed than was first offered by Luther's articles. Philip was more favorably inclined to the Zwinglians in 1537 than in 1530. He wanted to regard them as "weaker brothers" rather than opponents to the true doctrine of the Reformation. Luther modified, under the influence of Pomeranius (Bugenhagen) the language of the Real Presence from "the body of the Lord is given with the bread" to the more Scriptural, clearer and less ambiguous "the bread is the body of the Lord." While he did not disagree publicly with Luther's doctrine, privately he still "considered it to be dangerous to the Concord with the Southern Germans and the Smalcald League." (Bente, p. 55)

That the doctrines of both Concomitance and Transubstantiation are clearly rejected in Article VI of the Smalcald Articles is manifest. Three short paragraphs conclude the discussions with the Roman Catholic opponents of the Reformation. The first paragraph states the classical definition of the Real Presence: "that the bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ" and establishes also the reception by the ungodly.

Rejection of Concomitance

The second paragraph begins with a rejection of the most obvious and offensive abuse that the doctrine of Concomitance leads to: distribution of only the host to the communicants. There were other abuses such as the parades and indulgences connected to the Corpus Christi festival, the reservation of the Sacrament, the adoration of the host in the tabernacle on the altar and the notion of the unbloody sacrifice of Christ at each Mass. The communion with only the bread was experienced most frequently by the subjects of Rome.

Hermann Sasse says (This Is My Body, Luther Publishing House, p. 78) that in 1520 Luther accepted the idea of concomitance. But he adds that later he rejects the doctrine of concomitance because it was "the source of the mutilation of the Sacrament." (bold emphasis mine) Those who claim Luther rejected only the abuse of the withholding of the cup are dangerously mistaken and leave future generations without a solid Confessional defense against those and similar abuses.

How did Rome justify withholding the cup from the people? It was because of the doctrine of Concomitance that held as the Council of Trent (for the entire section see the Appendix) says, the body is ". . . under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who has now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with his body and soul." 8 DS 1640; Catechism of the Catholic Church. 

A Roman Catholic High School religion textbook (My Catholic Faith by Louis Laravoire Morrow, S.T.D. A Manual of Religion) contains this instruction that demonstrates the logical process used to establish and defend the notion of Concomitance:

"2. Christ is whole and entire under the appearances of bread or wine. As Christ's Body is a living body, and a living body has blood, so Christ's Blood is there wherever His Body Is.

Where Christ's living Body and Blood are, there also must be His soul, for the body and blood cannot live without the soul. And where Christ's Soul Is, there also is His Divinity, which cannot be separated from His humanity."

An Internet forum defines the Roman view of the Supper:

"The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Risen Lord.  All are present in each form, as to separate the Blood from the Body is to cause Death. Christ has conquered Death and cannot die again. The two forms are in fact consecrated in separate vessels in remembrance of His Sacrifice, but each become the full Body and Blood, as that is the Nature of the Resurrected Body." http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=11778

A more detailed explanation of the doctrine and process of concomitance is found in the book, Catholic Catechism, by John A. Hardon, S.J. 1975 and is attached as an appendix at the end of this paper.

See also the quote from Aquinas above. The word "concomitance" basically means "inference." that is, that a doctrine can be established, not only by clear words of Scripture as Luther, Chemnitz, Walther and Pieper and other orthodox Lutherans held, but by logical inference. The facts from which the inference about Christ being wholly and entirely present in the elements are stated clearly by Roman theology: 1) That Christ is living, having arisen from death and 2) "on account of the admirable hypostatical union." From this is derived or inference is made that since Christ's living body is present on the altar after the priest consecrates it, the living body must be the whole and entire Christ, since Christ cannot be divided. So says the hypostatical union (personal union) doctrine.

The inference is in error in both points. Scripture does not relate the Lord's Supper to the living Christ as point 1) above erroneously indicates. Lutherans recognize that the only event commanded to be remembered in receiving the body and blood of the Lord is His sacrificial death on the cross two millennia ago. The separate gifts of His body and blood in bread and wine are emblematic of death, not life or resurrection. Humiliation, not exaltation. If one wants to conceive of the place from which God gives these gifts he must reasonably think back in history to Golgotha, not to the present glorified and living body of Christ at the right hand of the Father. Lutherans dare not fall for the ploy of the Romans and the Reformed in directing us to heaven. We should, guided by the Word, return to first century Jerusalem and to the cross where atonement for sins was being made.

Point 2) above is often the major reason that contemporary Concomitantists use to prove that the whole Christ must be present in the elements Supper and will be discussed later under the topic "Using the Doctrine of the Personal Union to Modify the Meaning of the Sacramental Union Described in the Words of Institution." But does the doctrine of the two natures ever indicate in Scripture that the whole Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Supper? Are Jesus' words so incomplete and insufficient when He says what is in the bread and wine that we need to naturally infer something else is there that He does not specify? Are His human and divine natures divided when He gives us His body in the bread and His blood in the wine? The Personal Union of the divine and human natures in Christ is one thing. The Sacramental Union of His body with bread and His blood with wine is quite another. So, contrary to what some of the Sacramentarians say, He feeds us with His divine and human body and His divine and human blood. Simple acceptance of His Words of Institution, not scholarly, sophistic and logical inference, is all that is needed for the Christian to know with certainty what he is being given by his Lord.

Luther in Smalcald Article VI calls this doctrine by inference "specious learning of the sophists." He points out that Lutherans also don't need the declarations of the Council of Constance in 1415 which defined the doctrine of sacramental concomitance for the Roman church to support their Scriptural doctrine.

Johan Gerhard understands the source of Concomitance as being reason, not Scripture (bold emphasis mine): "Points of contention: That one can derive no greater benefit from the use of both elements than from just one element, because the whole Christ is received under (along with) both. ANSWER: 1. Such a conclusion is concocted from reason, contrary to Christ's institution, 2. And is based on the concomitantia or essential natural unity of the body and blood of Christ, which was briefly dealt with previously (point of contention no. 3 above.) ..... " A Comprehensive Explanation, p. 249

Luther had the Words of Christ and Paul, although he does not quote them here, presumably because everyone would have known the Words of Institution. Nowhere does Christ or Paul say His "living" body is in the bread. Neither does Christ or Paul say that the "whole Christ" is in the elements of bread and wine. For Rome to say it makes sense, since they establish dogma by inference and logical deductions. But for Lutherans to say it is unconscionable, since they establish doctrine only by clear words of Scripture.

Then follows a hypothetical case: "Even if it were true....." This wording makes it clear that what follows is not true. An analogy that shows this is: "Even if the Detroit Lions were a better team than the Dallas Cowboys, I would still root for the 'Pokes." The speaker does not believe the Lions are better than the Cowboys. He is posing a hypothetical situation. So Luther uses the hypothetical here to set off the contrast between Rome's stance and his position on what, not Who, is present in the elements.

"Even if it were true that as much is included under one form as under both, yet administration in one form is not the whole order and institution as it was established and commanded by Christ." It is not true that one receives either the blood of Christ or the entire Christ with the bread. The Words of Institution from Christ tell what is given and received in the Sacrament: The Body of Christ with the bread and the blood of Christ with the wine. The entire Christ is not mentioned at all in the words of Institution which Luther calls attention to in this article. That is why none of the defining sections of the Confessions mention the presence of the entire Christ.

Luther finally "condemns and curses" those who forbid communion with both the bread and wine; that is the Pope and the Bishops of Rome who consider themselves more authoritative than Christ Himself who instituted the Supper for us Christians to eat and drink.

Rejection of Transubstantiation

In a shorter paragraph, the first Martin deals by name with the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which he derisively calls "subtle sophistry." Luther does not bother to repeat the formula that is quoted in the first paragraph to establish that the true body and blood of Christ are present, but Luther does quote two of Paul's clear references to eating the bread, to demonstrate that the simple reading of the Bible teaches the presence also of the earthly elements which Rome denied by virtue of teaching Transubstantiation.

The Clear Dogmatic Statements of the Other Symbols on the Real Presence

While Article VI of the Smalcald Articles deals with the doctrine of Concomitance directly, the other Symbols deal with it and other doctrines contrary to Christ's teaching indirectly by stating the clear, plain and unambiguous Scriptural doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in (with and under) the bread and wine. These sections should be regarded as expositions of the truth of Scripture by which all other statements, words and phrases of the Confessions should be understood.

The defining and clear statements regarding the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine from the Symbols other than the Apology and Smalcald Articles are as follows, taken from Bente, F., Concordia Triglotta, (Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Northwestern Publishing House) 1997 and the emphases in italics are mine..

Small Catechism

VI. THE SACRAMENT OF THE ALTAR,

1] What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

2] Answer.

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Large Catechism

8] Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?

Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 9] And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

Formula of Concord Epitome

STATUS CONTROVERSIAE.

Chief Controversy between Our Doctrine and That of the Sacramentarians regarding This Article.

2] Whether in the Holy Supper the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed with the bread and wine, and received with the mouth by all those who use this Sacrament, whether they be worthy or unworthy, godly or ungodly, believing or unbelieving; by the believing for consolation and life, by the unbelieving for judgment? The Sacramentarians say, No; we say, Yes.

Formula of Concord Solid Declaration

9] Over against this it is taught in the Augsburg Confession from God's Word concerning the Lord's Supper: That the true body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Holy Supper under the form of bread and wine, and are there dispensed and received; and the contrary doctrine is rejected (namely, that of the Sacramentarians, who presented their own Confession at the same time at Augsburg, that the body of Christ, because He has ascended to heaven, is not truly and essentially present here upon earth in the Sacrament [which denied the true and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Supper administered on earth, namely, for the reason that Christ had ascended into heaven]); 10] even as this opinion is clearly expressed in Luther's Small Catechism in the following words: The Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself; 11] and in the Apology this is not only explained still more clearly, but also established by the passage from Paul, 1 Cor. 10, 16, and by the testimony of Cyril, in the following words: The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with the visible elements, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. For since Paul says: "The bread which we break is the communion of the body of Christ," etc., it would follow, if the body of Christ were not, but only the Holy Ghost were truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but of the Spirit of Christ. Besides, we know that not only the Romish, but also the Greek Church has taught the bodily presence of Christ in the Holy Supper. And testimony is produced from Cyril that Christ dwells also bodily in us in the Holy Supper by the communication of His flesh."

It is significant that Article X of the Apology is directly quoted in the Formula of Concord in the discussion of the Lord's Supper (� 11), but it reiterates the teaching of the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood as "truly and essentially present and are truly offered with the visible elements, the bread and wine...."  There is no mention of "the living Christ" or the "living body."  If the whole, living Christ is an essential and obvious part of the doctrine of the Real Presence, why is it not mentioned in the Solid Declaration, or any of the other Confessions?  It is because the defined doctrine of the Sacramental (Real) Presence is taken from the clear and simple words of Institution and not developed from the doctrine of the Two Natures.

Phrases Sometimes Used to Relate The Whole Christ to the Elements

This last sentence from the Solid Declaration invites a discussion of various phrases used in the Confessions that might introduce misunderstanding of the Real Presence. "Bodily presence" is one of those phrases that has been discussed briefly above in the introductory part of this paper. Chemnitz brings up from the Apology the demonstration that the Romish and Greek Churches teach that Christ's body is present in the Supper. That is true, but it is true from their point of view that the bread and wine have been changed into the body and blood of Christ. This does not imply that Chemnitz or the Lutherans accept Transubstantiation. Neither does the quote from Cyril that Christ dwells also in us bodily. Nor does it mean that Lutherans accept the inferential reasoning that led to this and other such conclusions, such as Concomitance.

"Bodily presence" is properly understood as the same as "the presence of the true body" of Christ. To take "bodily presence" to mean the "presence of the entire Christ in the elements of bread and wine" is not justified at all. The use of the phrase in the Confessions, as clearly demonstrated in the passage from the Apology and the Solid Declaration, is in harmony with the definitive dogmatic assertions of the Symbols.

The Reformers are usually and almost tediously accurate in their use of the proper terms for the Doctrine of the Real Presence. This is amazing considering the effort it took to write long phrases with a quill pen dipped frequently in ink and often sharpened. The principle of economy of words, space, time and ink would assert itself if it were not important to be exact and unambiguous.  It would seem that there would be more instances of the use of "theological shorthand" than there are.

A clear example of this shorthand using a different phrase is found in Melanchthon as cited by Bente on page 57 (bold emphasis mine).

"March 1 Melanchthon wrote to Camerarius: 'Bucer spoke openly and clearly of the Mystery [the Lord's Supper], affirming the presence of Christ. He satisfied all of our party, also those who are more sever. Blaurer, however, employed such general expressions as that Christ was present. Afterward he added several more ambiguous expressions. Osiander pressed him somewhat hotly; but since we did not desire to arouse any very vehement quarrel, I terminated the discussion. Thus we separated, so that agreement was restored among all others, while he [Blauerer] did not seem to contradict. I know that this is weak, but nothing else could be done at this time, especially since Luther was absent, being tormented by very sever gravel pains.'"

In this letter of Philip, we see clearly the use of "shorthand." Commenting on Bucer's confession "affirming the presence of Christ," Melanchthon and the rest of the theologians, including those of a more "sever"or strict attitude toward doctrinal expression, clearly approve of Bucer's confession. Obviously it was more in line with Luther's formula, "the bread is the body of the Lord," than was Blaurer's "general" and "ambiguous" claim "that Christ was present." Veit Dietrich recalls that at a meeting a couple days later the theologians again discussed the Lord's Supper. Bucer satisfied them all. Blaurer denied that the ungodly received the body of Christ.

"Christ is present"or "the presence of Christ" is a phrase that is mostly avoided by the Lutherans in discussing the Real Presence. It is used to describe the position of the Sacramentarians in the Solid Declaration VII at least two times as Chemnitz describes "The Chief Issue." "... [T]hey confessed that the Lord Christ is truly present in the Supper....." (Tappert, � 4) and "...that the Lord Christ is present in his Supper truly, essentially and alive." (� 6)

Chemnitz does use the phrase in � 105 in the discussion of the "spiritual" mode of Christ's presence. ".... we have in mind the spiritual, supernatural, heavenly mode according to which Christ is present in the Holy Supper, not only to work comfort and life in believers but also to wreak judgment on unbelievers." This follows a rather lengthy discussion of "the use and action" aspects of the Supper. (� 73-89) "Christ Himself" is said to be present in the use and action, but not in the elements. "....Christ Himself is still active through the spoken words by virtue of the first institution, which He wants repeated." "Chrysostom says in his Sermon on the Passion: 'Christ himself prepares this table and blesses it. No human being, but only Christ himself who was crucified for us, can make of the bread and wine set before us the body and blood of Christ."

The mode of Christ's presence as host and speaker of the efficacious Words of the Supper and the mode of Christ's body and blood are both the "spiritual" or "supernatural" mode. Christ is the host preparing the table and with His Word blesses the bread and wine so they are also His body and blood which are to be eaten and drunk for the forgiveness of sins. That is why the statement is true: "Where Christ's body and blood are, there is also Christ." If He were not there in the Word and as host, the bread would remain bread and the wine would remain wine. But to understand this phrase, "Christ is present in the Holy Supper'" to mean that Christ is in the bread and wine because Christ's body and blood are in the bread and wine, or anything similar, is not tenable. That is an inference that is not supported by a clear word of Scripture.

The phrase "Christ Himself.... is present" is also used in the 15^th condemnation (SD VII, � 126) "15. Likewise (we condemn) the teaching that the elements (the visible forms of the blessed bread and wine) are to be adored. Of course, no one but an Arian heretic can or will deny that Christ himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the Supper when it is rightly used, should be adored in spirit and in truth in all places but especially where his community is assembled." (Italics mine)

Are we to understand from this that the whole Christ Himself is substantially present in the bread and wine by concomitance with His body and blood? Condemnation 15 is specifically rejecting the Roman notion that the visible forms should be adored as if they contained the whole and entire Christ. But all true Christians recognize that the "wrong use" and wrong understanding of the clear Words of Christ's Institution have neither the presence of the Lord or His body and blood in the action or the elements, such as is the case with Baptist churches. But, on the other hand, those who hear and heed the simple and clear Words of the divine and human Savior, "administering the right use," have what they say and express: namely the presence of the Lord in the action of the Supper and His true, human and divine body and blood in the bread and wine, along with all the benefits of them.

The phrase "Christ Himself" is often used in the Confessions. The Sacramentarians say they "partake truly and essentially, but still only spiritually, of the body of Christ which is there in heaven, yes, of Christ Himself." (� 3) At Marburg Zwingli and his comrades were always trying to get Luther to talk about Christ in the Sacrament. Luther insisted on focusing on the Words of Institution: "This is my body."

The statement in Tappert SD VIII � 29, "Because of this communicated power he can be truly present with his body and blood in the Holy Supper according to the words of his covenant, to which he has directed us through his Word." has been a source of misunderstanding When the phrase "with his body and blood" is interpreted to as mean "in his body and blood," it is disservice to the language and the clear meaning of the Words of Institution to which Luther and Chemnitz direct the reader.

This phrase "with his body and blood" must be understood in agreement with the Words of Institution that are clear and simple. The preposition "with," ("cum" and "mit") "in general indicates a relation of proximity, association or nearness." (Webster's) While the body and blood of Christ are "in, with and under" the bread and wine, Christ Himself is not said to be "in, with and under" the bread and wine or "in, with and under" His body and blood. Rather the understanding is that of accompaniment, as in the sentence: "The waiter arrived with the food." This obviously does not mean that the waiter arrived "in" the food. He brought the food that was to be served. So Christ, as host, is present with His body and blood to serve His people what His own holy, simple and clear words He Himself says they eat and drink - His body and blood. He is present in the action of the Supper as Host and with His body and blood in the bread and wine. He serves the gifts to the communicants that worked forgiveness of sins for sinners on the cross.

This is the proper sense in which other uses of the phrase "Christ is present with his body and blood" should be read. To read "with" as "in" does violence to the Words of our Lord and the Lutheran Fathers.

Using the Doctrine of the Personal Union to Modify the Meaning of the Sacramental Union Described in the Words of Institution

This is exactly what the Roman Catholics did in their development of the Doctrine of Concomitance.

The following is from secondexodus.com, a Roman Catholic doctrinal website.

"Concomitance

The doctrine that the whole Christ is present under the appearance of bread and also under the appearance of wine.

Christ is indivisible. His body cannot be separated from His blood, His human soul, His divine nature, and His divine personality. So He is wholly present in each Eucharist.

During the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the first consecration transubstantiates the bread into the substance of His body. His blood, soul, and divinity become present by concomitance, their inseparable connection with his body, not precisely because of the words of consecration.

The second consecration transubstantiates the wine into the substance of His blood. His body, soul, divinity, and personality become present by the same concomitance, not precisely because of the words of consecration.

Jesus is a divine person with a divine nature and a human nature. The word divinity, as in "body, blood, soul and divinity" refers to His divine personhood, and also specifically to His divine nature."

The very first reason given for the doctrine of Concomitance is the personal union. "Christ is indivisible. His body cannot be separated from His blood, His human soul, His divine nature, and His divine personality. So He is wholly present in each Eucharist." The doctrine of the two natures in Christ being indivisible is correctly stated.. The application, however, is not exactly correct. "His body cannot be separated from His blood." This is not exactly correct, since His body was separated from His blood in the atoning death He died. That is how God caused His death in fact. "Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins." Heb. 9:22

Yet that is not the main issue. The conclusion, "So He is wholly present in each Eucharist." is an inference drawn from the premise. Regrettably, this conclusion amends the plain and simple words of Jesus' institution of the Supper. The Roman Catholics add something to what Jesus said because they infer from the doctrine of the Personal Union that because the body and blood of Christ are present, the whole and entire Christ must be present in order to justify their profitable abuses of the Eucharist.

This inference needs to be tested against the rest of the Words of God that speak of what is present in the Supper. But care must be taken not to commit the same mistakes the Romans did by applying one doctrine against another doctrine.

Since Jesus, the Almighty, omniscient, omnipotent God in flesh "who can do far more than we can ask or imagine" (Eph. 3:20-21) declares in simple and clear words that His body and blood are separately and really present in the bread and wine, believers should accept the Words of Institution at face value, not taking anything from them or adding anything to them. As true God, Jesus could have instituted the Sacrament in any way that He desired. It was His will that He instituted it as we have it clearly taught in Holy Scripture. He did not give us His Words to confuse His disciples or to make them delve into philosophical realms to discover what He was giving. He told them plainly and simply what was present and why these elements were there.

As the Romans drew from inference on the "blessed hypostatical union" their notion that Christ was wholly and entirely in both the blessed bread and wine, so some Lutherans have also drawn from the orthodox teaching on the Person of Christ that Christ Himself is "somehow incomprehensibly present" in the bread/body and wine/blood.

Yet the Solid Declaration Article VIII on the Person of Christ also has a definitive statement on the Real Presence. (Tappert, SD, VIII, � 2) After correctly observing that the controversy about the Person of Christ was begun, not by the Lutherans who held to the Augustana, but the Sacramentarians, Chemnitz writes: "For when Dr. Luther maintained with solid arguments the true, essential presence of Christ's body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Lord's Supper on the basis of the words of institution, the Zwinglians countered by saying that the body of Christ could not be a true and genuine body if it were present at the same time in heaven and in the Holy Supper since such majesty belongs to God alone and the body of Christ is incapable of it."

The defining statement of the Real Presence is in these words: "Dr. Luther maintained with solid arguments the true, essential presence of Christ's body and blood of Jesus Christ in the Lord's Supper on the basis of the words of institution." This agrees with all the other defining statements of the Confessions, although it does not mention the visible elements by name, but obviously included them in "in the Lord's Supper."

To pit other Articles of faith, phrases and words, whether in the Confessional writings themselves or in other writings of orthodox men, against these definitive sections by inference is falling back on the method of interpretation of those against whom the Symbols were written and that is so contrary to the Lutheran approach to texts.

Johann Gerhard, A Comprehensive Explanation, p247-247, makes this exact point (bold emphasis mine).

"Points of contention: That Christ's blood is no longer separated from His body; accordingly, anyone who receives the consecrated bread in the holy Supper - and along with it Christ's true body - the same of necessity receives per concomitantiam (along with it) the true blood of Christ. Hence it is sufficient to only use the consecrated bread. ANSWER: ..... 5. In this matter, the question of the essential unity of the body and blood of Christ is not raised or dealt with: also the personal unity of both natures of Christ is not being questioned. Rather the entire question and dispute consists of the sacramental presence of the body and blood of Christ; that we, in light of the institution of Christ say that only the body - and not the blood - of Christ is sacramentally united with the consecrated bread in the holy Lord's Supper, and also, that only the blood - and not the body - of Christ is sacramentally united with the consecrated chalice. Every true disciple of Christ truly adheres to this simplicity and disregards and other far-fetched argument that opposes these clear words of Christ's institution."

The last sentence is a loving and simple admonition, not only to disavow Concomitance as taught by Rome, but to reject any other versions of interpretation by inference that would lead one to subtract from or add to "the clear words of Christ's institution." Adding to the Words of Christ by inference is as much opposition as taking away from these sacred vocables. Thus to insist that Christ is "somehow" wholly and entirely present in the paired elements, is as much a Concomitance doctrine as is the one posited by Rome that Christ is present in each of the elements. Both positions say more than Christ says. This insistence also refutes the Lutheran position that the Words of Institution are sufficient for an understanding of the Sacrament.

So as it is not true that Christ is in each of the earthly elements, it is also not true that one "in some incomprehensible way" receives the whole and entire Christ, body and soul, humanity and divinity in the bread and wine together, yet His blood is not in the bread and His body is not in the wine. This is one of the "far-fetched argument(s) that opposes these clear words of Christ's institution" Gerhard is warning against. The conclusion, once you start drawing these kinds of inferences, must be that if Christ is in the earthly elements together, then Christ must be in each element. If He is not, then one does not receive Christ until he has received the wine. So He is really not in the bread; else if He is, one does not really need to have the wine. One has departed from the "simplicity" of the Word and is back at the Roman mutilation of the sacrament to which all sophistical inferences lead.

The Distinction Between the Personal Union and the Sacramental Union

Paragraphs 35 through 40 of the Formula, Solid Declaration, Art. VII discuss specifically the distinction between the personal union and the sacramental union: "for as in Christ two distinct and untransformed natures are indivisibly united, so in the Holy Supper the two essences, the natural bread and that the true, natural body of Christ, are present together here on earth in the ordered action of the Sacrament, though the union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, like that of the two nature's in Christ, but a *sacramental union," as Dr. Luther and our theologians called it in the above mentioned articles of agreement of 1536 and elsewhere." (� 38 Emphasis mine) Chemnitz clearly states that the sacramental union of Christ's body and blood with the bread and wine does not involve a personal union of Christ with His body and blood in the bread and wine as does Gerhard in the quote above.

Formula, Solid Declaration, Article VIII � 76-79 also contains the following : "To make certainty and assurance doubly sure on this point, he has instituted his Holy Supper that he might be present with us, dwell in us, work and be mighty in us according to that nature, too, according to which he has flesh and blood." The point Chemnitz is making has to do with the "personal union" (see � 76), and not the sacramental union. In the Holy Supper Christ works as God and man ("that nature according to which he has flesh and blood"), not just as God. The body and blood that are given are His divine and human body and blood, not just His divine body and blood. It is "real" body and blood, not a spiritual representation nor a vehicle for the entire Christ to enter again those He already inhabits.

Christ's "presence with us"is separate issue than His body and blood being present in the bread and wine, but undoubtedly He is present where the sacramental union is taking place through the power and efficacy of His Word. He also "dwells in us," not by virtue of the fact that we have taken His body and blood in the bread and wine into our mouths. He dwells in us by faith as He said in John 6. That faith in Him is strengthened by eating and drinking what He offers and gives: His body and blood for the forgiveness of sins. He dwells in us in that unique presence (see � 77) as true God and true man.

This is the essence of the "damnamus" number 6, Solid Declaration, Article VIII � 94: "Likewise, (we condemn the teaching) that in the preached Word and in the right use of the holy sacraments Christ is present with us on earth only according to his deity, and that this presence does not involve his assumed human nature in any way whatever." Christ is present in like manner both in preaching and sacrament; that is, according to both natures. One cannot but notice the emphasis on "the right use of the holy sacraments" as the field of Christ's presence. Chemnitz properly does not say Christ is present in the elements, but in "the right use."

He concludes Article VIII encouraging the same kind of approach to the mystery of the personal union as that to the mystery of the sacramental union. "... we admonish all Christians not to pry presumptuously into this mystery with their reason, but with the holy apostles simply to believe, close their eyes to reason, take their intellect captive to obey Christ..." (FC, SD, Article VII, � 96)

The Distinction Between the Modes of Christ's Presence and the Sacramental Union

Some Lutherans have made a point that the Luther quote in the Solid Declaration against the "spiritual" presence of Christ as the Sacramentarians contend proves that the whole Christ is present in the elements of bread and wine. 

There are a number of difficulties with this argument.  First is the context.  Luther is arguing against a purely and exclusively spiritual presence of Christ as posited by the deniers of the substantial presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine.  Everyone believed in the "spiritual presence of Christ" whenever His Supper was celebrated, but the Sacramentarians denied that Christ's real and true body and blood could possibly be present in the bread and wine because they were bound up with Him in heaven, incapable of being in two places at one time.  Luther is not arguing  the "Real Presence of Christ," but the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine. 

Second, in � 100 Luther speaks of the "spiritual mode of presence" that is "incomprehensible" (uncircumscribed, unlimited, unbound to a particular localized place).  This is certainly not an indication that the whole Christ dwells bodily in the bread and wine.  Jesus, he says, used this mode to pass through the stone of the tomb, the locked door and as some think the virgin flesh of His mother.  Luther certainly did not mean that "the whole Christ, body and soul, humanity and divinity" was "in the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper."  In � 103 the reformer leaves it open that God may have other modes whereby Christ's body may be present anywhere, since He has power to do anything He desires. 

Third, the modes of Christ's presence are distinct from the Sacramental Union of His body with the bread and wine.  The modes of Christ's presence speak about the singular person of the whole Christ, whereas the various Unions speak of two or more entities being joined into one.  The Personal Union shows that Christ is true God and true man in one person.  The Mystical Union speaks of the union of the believer with Christ.  The Sacramental Union is the uniting of Christ's body with the bread and Christ's blood with the wine of the Sacrament of the Altar.  The Sacramentarians confuse the "spiritual" presence of Christ with the mystical union of the Savior with believers.  (See � 104)  Thus their erroneous notion that the believer in the Holy Communion ascends to heaven by faith and remembrance to unite with Christ there.

Fourth, Luther and his compadres have a different view as shown in � 105.  Their definition of "spiritual,"  when used in the context of the Lord's Supper means the "spiritual, supernatural, heavenly mode according to which Christ is present in the Supper, not only to work comfort and life in believers, but also to work judgment on unbelievers."  "In this sense, too, we use the word "spiritual" when we say that the body and blood of Christ in the Supper are received, eaten and drunk spiritually, for although such eating occurs with the mouth, the mode is spiritual."  Would we not be correct to think that "spiritual" simply means "supernatural" or  "miraculous?"  Both the presence in spirit of the Lord Jesus in the action and use of the Sacrament and the real, substantial, essential presence of His body and blood in the bread and wine are indeed miraculous even though they are two different things: the one a "mode of presence" and the other a "union" of two sets of substances.

The web page of the Missouri Synod explains this very well in a Q&A.

http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2615

Sacrificed Body and Blood

Q. In communion, do we commune with the sacrificed body and blood of Jesus, or the resurrected body and blood of Jesus?

A. The answer to your question is that we receive in, with, and under the bread and wine the true body and blood of Christ shed on the cross, Jesus Christ Who is now risen and ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father. He is the same Christ, and when he gave us the Sacrament, as the Lutheran Confessions affirm, "he was speaking of his true, essential body, which he gave into death for us, and of his true, essential blood, which was poured out for us on the tree of the cross for the forgiveness of sins" (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration VII, 49).

In the Sacrament, our Confessions further teach, the same Jesus who died is present in the Sacrament, although not in exactly the same way that he was corporeally present when he walked bodily on earth. With Luther, the Formula of Concord speaks of "the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence according to which he neither occupies nor yields space but passes through everything created as he wills....He employed this mode of presence when he left the closed grave and came through closed doors, in the bread and wine in the Supper...."[FC SD VII, 100; emphasis added].

The Sacramental Presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine is different ("not in exactly the same way") from the "spiritual mode of presence" which the Formula notes.

Summary and Conclusion

Professor Roland F. Ziegler in his paper to the Concordia Theological Seminary Confessional Symposium in 2001 contributes significant comments on this trend in liberal Lutheranism as he reflects on The New English Translation of The Book of Concord .. (Augsburg/Fortress 2000): Locking the Barn Door After which was published in the April 2002 issue of Concordia Theological Quarterly. In considering whether a new translation of the Confessions is relevant in these days, Ziegler uses the latest Ecumenical Dialogues among the liberal Lutherans as illustrative. Even though he is speaking of the Formula of Agreement (and its predecessors the Arnholdshain Theses and the Leuenberg Concord) between the liberal Lutherans in the ELCA and a number of Reformed bodies, he demonstrates that this new way of thinking has permeated even more conservative circles.

A basic shift in theological thinking made these theses possible. Instead of the historic, confessional approach, which thinks in substances, a relational and personalistic ontology formed the basic matrix of the understanding of the Lord's Supper. Communion is not about isolated substances, not about the body and blood of Christ, but about an encounter with Christ Himself, which is the primary focus. The historic position, with its fixation on Christ's body and blood threatens to overcome what is believed to be the true nature of the Christian faith, namely, a personal relationship or encounter with the risen Christ. Body and blood are not seen as substances, but as a qualification of Christ: We encounter the entire Christ in the Lord's Supper, not solely His divine nature. (CTQ, P.153)

This personalistic thinking among the Reformed has risen and even predominates among liberal Lutherans. The concrete presence "substances" of the Lord's Supper, bread and wine, body and blood, have given way to an emphasis on "Christ's personal presence."  The following is from an ELCA Youth Study on the Lord's Supper.

One of the ways Lutherans believe that Jesus is totally real and present with us is in the bread and wine, the Body and Blood, of the Eucharist (Communion, Lord�s Supper, etc.). Every time we take the bread and wine, we believe that Jesus is there in a way that we can taste, smell, see, and touch. Through this God feeds us, strengthens us, heals us, connects us, and sends us out into the world to be the very real, very present body of Christ for others. Thanks be to God for that! http://www.elca.org/youth/faithlens/week263.html

That a similar emphasis in only in its infant stages among the Confessionals of the LCMS, is not comforting. It is distressing and should be nipped in the bud with serious Bible and Confessional positions.

"The main reason I am a Lutheran and plan to remain one is the Gospel. Lutherans are all about the Gospel - Jesus Christ on the cross for us sinners! Jesus Christ in the font for us sinners! Jesus Christ on the altar, in our mouths for us sinners!" (Higher Things, Winter 2005, pages 28-29)

"Reformed Christians, deriving their theology form the teachings of Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin, deny that Christ is truly present in, with and under the bread and wine." (A Reader�s Edition of the Book of Concord, page 505..)

This sentence implies that Lutherans believe "that Christ is truly present in, with and under the bread and wine." But real Lutherans don�t believe that according to the "clear Word of God" that takes "captive our human reason." We believe that "All who commune receive Christ�s body and blood...." To assert that Christ is truly and really present �in, with and under the bread and wine" when the Bible does not say it is letting reason, logic and speculation take us captive.

"However, what must be made perfectly clear is that Lutheranism does not assert the biblical teaching of Christ�s presence in His Supper on the basis of philosophical arguments, or on the basis of the doctrine of the two natures. These points, though true and valid, are all marshaled to defend the chief and foremost foundation of the reality of the Lord�s presence in His Supper; the words of Christ Himself. When the Reformed or others deny that the Lord means what He says, "This is My body," Lutherans point first to Jesus� words. In fact, this is what Luther meant at the Marburg Colloquy when he said, "It is written." (A Reader�s Edition of the Book of Concord, page 530.)

This paragraph, describing the Controversies of the Confessional age, shows the difficulty of the problem. Whichever editor wrote this does not see the contradiction he has written. He claims that the words "This is my body" mean something more than the obvious. He thinks that in addition to His body, "the Lord" Himself is present in the element of bread. The Real Presence, however, is not a "presence of the Lord," but of the Lord�s body and blood. This is Jesus� plain, simple and clear Word. "My body" in, with and under the bread and the "blood of the New Testament" in, with and under the wine.

Professor Ziegler gives a bit of history behind this "personalistic" emphasis.

The personalistic approach of the Leuenberg Concord is not altogether new. A summary of the thinking of Christoph Pezel on the question of the presence of Christ in his True and Honest Vindication of the Preachers in Bremen (1582) illustrates this." Pezel was a Melanchthonian professor at Wittenberg, who was deposed when the "crypto-Calvinists" were overthrown. He later lived in Nassau and finally in Bremen, where his transition from Melanchthonianism to Calvinism took place. In his True and Honest Vindication he defended Bremen as a church that truly upheld the Augsburg Confession against the charges of heresy leveled against the city by the Lutheran archbishop of Bremen. It became, at the same time, a theological discussion regarding the Formula of Concord. (CTQ, Page 154)

Pezel claimed to be Lutheran while holding to doctrine that was subLutheran. The Liberals of the LWF and the ELCA still do this. Lutherans Confession of the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ's body and blood should match that of the Bible and the Confessions, resisting all pressures from the trendy vocabulary and concepts that are currently popular.

Considering the fact that the Confessions bind us first to Scripture, to which these ecumenical statements also pay homage, this shows a serious lack of confessional spirit on the side of the Lutheran participants. What is emphasized on the other hand, is the christological foundation of the Lord's Supper, namely the connection of the genus maiestaticum and Christ's bodily presence in the Lord's Supper. That is, of course, true, but the documents almost evoke the impression that this christological dogma was the foundation of the Lord's Supper, an opinion that is rightfully rejected by Pieper as a Reformed calumny. Luther and the Lutherans believed in the real presence of Christ's body and blood not because they derived it from their Christology, but because the text of the words of institution say just that. The Lutheran doctrine rests on clear passages of Scripture, it is not a conclusion from Christology.   (Ziegler, CTQ, p 155)

This expression of the basic hermaneutical principle in reaction to the Reformed error also applies to the Roman error of concomitance. Ziegler says it well. Attempts to override the clear teaching of Jesus and Paul on what is in the earthly elements by using "christological dogma" is untenable whether one is supporting the Reformed's "spiritual presence of Christ" or Rome's "the presence of the whole and entire Christ in the elements."

When the intellect and reason by inferences from the doctrine of the Personal Union modifies the doctrine of the Real Presence to suggest that Christ meant to say something more than He actually said in His Institution, it becomes master over Christ. If one uses the personal union to say that Christ meant to say: "Take eat, this bread is My body and in some incomprehensible way Me as well," he is either on the road to returning to Rome or he is inventing some new doctrine that is not established by the clear and simple Word of God.

It is better to take Chemnitz' advise and not resort to logic, reason, inference or deduction and "In this way...." we ... "will be well protected against pernicious errors." (FC, SD, Article VII, � 96)

Sola Gloria Deo et Sola Scriptura

Appendix A

As to the Lord's Supper, he at first fully agreed with Luther's view, under the impression that it was substantially the old Catholic doctrine held by the fathers, for whom he had great regard, especially in matters of uncertain exegesis.494 He also shared his dislike of Zwingli's theological radicalism, and was disposed to trace it to a certain insanity.495 But his deeper and long-continued study of the subject, and his correspondence and personal intercourse with Bucer and Calvin, gradually convinced him that St. Augustine and other fathers favored rather a 264figurative or symbolical interpretation of the words of institution,496 and that the Scriptures taught a more simple, spiritual, and practical doctrine than either transubstantiation or consubstantiation. Owing to his characteristic modesty and caution, and his deep sense of the difficulties surrounding the problem, he did not set forth a fully developed theory or definition of the mode of Christ's presence, but he substantially agreed with Bucer and Calvin. He gave up the peculiar features of Luther's doctrine, viz., the literal interpretation of the words of institution, and the oral manducation of the body of Christ.497 He also repeatedly rejected (as, in fact, he never taught) the Lutheran dogma of the ubiquity of Christ's body, as being inconsistent with the nature of a body and with the fact of Christ's ascension to heaven and sitting in heaven, whence he shall return to judgment.498 But he never became a Zwinglian; he 265held fast to a spiritual real presence of the person (rather than the body) of Christ, and a fruition of his life and benefits by faith. In one of his last utterances, shortly before his death, he represented the idea of a vital union and communion with the person of Christ as the one and only essential thing in this sacred ordinance.499

Luther no doubt felt much grieved at these changes, and was strongly pressed by contracted and suspicious minds to denounce them openly, but he was too noble and generous to dissolve a long and invaluable friendship, which forms one of the brightest chapters in his life and in the history of the German Reformation.500 He kept down the rising 266antagonism by the weight of his personal authority, although he foresaw the troubles to come.501 After his death (1546) the war broke out with unrestrained violence. Melanchthon was too modest, peaceful, and gentle for the theological leadership, which now devolved upon him; he kept aloof from strife as far as possible, preferring to bear injury and insult with Christian meekness, and longed to be delivered from the 'fury of the theologians' (a rabie theologorum), which greatly embittered his declining years.502 Schaaf http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1.viii.vi.html

Appendix B

Council of Trent Chapter III

The most holy Eucharist indeed has this in common with the other sacraments, that it is a sign of a sacred thing, and a visible form of an invisible grace. Indeed, there is found in it this excellent and peculiar thing, that the other sacraments have power to sanctify only when someone uses them but in the Eucharist the Author of holiness is present before its use. For the apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord when He nevertheless Himself affirmed that that which He presented to them was His body. And this belief has always been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and His true blood, together with His soul and divinity, are there under the form (Latin "species") bread and wine; the body under the form of bread, and the blood under the form of wine, through the power of the words; however, the body also under the form of wine, and the blood under the form of bread, and the soul under both, by the power of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead to die no more, are mutually joined together; furthermore, the divinity on account of its wonderful personal union with His body and soul. Therefore it is most true that as much is contained under one form as under both, for the whole and undivided Christ is under the form of bread and under any part whatsoever of that form; likewise the whole Christ under the form of the wine and under its parts.

Appendix C

Catholic Catechism, by John A. Hardon, S.J. 1975

1. Responding to the claims of merely symbolic or spiritual presence, the Church condemned "anyone who denies that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is present in the sacrament only as a sign, or figure, or by power."

The expression "whole Christ" proved to be decisive. Since the whole Christ is present in the fullness of his divine and human natures, this implies that he is present under the sacramental appearances with the totality of his divine attributes as well as his human properties. He is therefore in the Eucharist also with the essence of those dimensional features that we commonly associate with a living human being. The explanation of how these physical properties are possible is part of theological speculation, but the fact is a matter of faith.

2. By the thirteenth century the term "transubstantiation" had come to be used to identify the change that occurs at the time of the consecration of the Eucharistic elements. At the Fourth Lateran Council, this term was part of the conciliar creed professing belief in the Eucharist. But Trent went a step farther. It not only used the term, but also declared the fitness of the expression. The reason was that some were ready to admit a real presence, even a corporeal one, but claimed that Christ was present along with the elements of bread and wine. Not so, the Council held, as though "the substance of bread and wine remains in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ." This would be to deny "that wonderful and extraordinary change of the whole substance of the bread into Christ's body and the whole substance of the wine into his blood, while only the species of bread and wine remain, a change that the Catholic Church has most fittingly called transubstantiation."

There was no dependence on Aristotelian philosophy in the Church's use of words like "substance" or "transubstantiation." Long before either term had become commonplace in the West, the East spoke regularly of the ousia or being of the bread and wine, which were changed into the ousia or being of Christ. That which constitutes bread and wine, in virtue of the sacramental consecration, ceased to be bread and wine and became the reality of the whole Christ. What alone remained were the species, i.e., appearances or external properties of what looked and tasted like bread and wine but were now the living body and blood of the Savior.

3. Again what may seem to have been a refinement actually touched on the essence of the sacrament, namely, the double question of whether Christ was entirely present under the form of bread or wine, and to what extent. Hence the Church's affirmation that "in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species and under each and every portion of either species when it is divided up." Communion under both species had been customary everywhere, and was then the practice in the Eastern rites. But in the sixteenth century, the strong insistence that the chalice be given to everyone occasioned this definition, which was also the doctrinal foundation for receiving only under the form of bread.

4. Still another theory was the notion that the Real Presence is to be identified with the liturgical action. This was explained with different nuances, but at their center was the denial of an objective reality that is independent of the faith or piety or devotion of the participants. The Church countered from every angle. Thus one cannot say that the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are "present only in the use of the sacrament while it is being received, and not before or after, and that the true body of the Lord does not remain in the consecrated hosts or particles that are left over after Communion."

Given this perdurance of Christ's presence as long as the species remain, it was only logical for the Church to worship the Blessed Sacrament as it would the person of Jesus himself. As a result, he is to be adored "in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist with the worship of latria, including the external worship." Concretely this means that the Blessed Sacrament is to be "honored with extraordinary festive celebrations" and "solemnly carried from place to place" and "is to be publicly exposed for the people's adoration."(Council of Trent, Canons 1-6)

The teachings of Trent ushered in a renascence of faith in the Real Presence that affected many facets of the Catholic liturgy. Notable among these was the renewed impetus it gave to the worship of the Blessed Sacrament reserved in the tabernacle or exposed in a monstrance on the altar.

Names like St. Margaret Mary Alacoque (1647--90) and St. Peter Julian Eymard (1811--68) are typical of one phase of this renascence. Margaret Mary's revelations, which helped to promote the modern devotion to the Sacred Heart, occurred while she was in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament. Peter Julian Eymard founded the Priests of the Blessed Sacrament, with a special emphasis on devotion to the Real Presence.

There the matter stood at the opening of the Second Vatican Council. In the meantime, new theories arose that the Church felt were endangering the unqualified faith in the Eucharistic presence and how it was brought about. These theories centered around the psychological notion of presence and the ritual notion of sign. The two were closely associated and, in order to forestall any further crisis, Paul VI took the unprecedented step of publishing a major doctrinal encyclical between the third and final sessions of the Council.

The Pope distinguished no less than eight ways in which we may speak of Christ being somewhere present. He is present in the Church when it prays, since it is Christ who prays for us and in us and to whom we pray as to our God. This is the sense in which we believe that where two or three are gathered together in Christ's name, he is there in the midst of them. He is present in the Church when it performs its works of mercy, not only because we do to Christ whatever good we do to his brethren, but also because it is Christ, performing these works through the Church, who continually assists the faithful with his divine love. He is present in the Church on its pilgrimage of struggle to reach the harbor of eternal life, since it is he who through faith dwells in our hearts and, through the Holy Spirit, whom he gives, pours his love into our hearts.

Christ is also present, in another way, in the Church as it preaches his Gospel, since the Gospel that the Church proclaims is the word of God. It is preached in his name, by his authority, and with the assistance of his grace. He is no less present in the Church as it governs the people of God, since the sacred power inherent in the Mystical Body comes from him. As shepherd of shepherds, he is present in the pastors who exercise the power conferred on them as successors of the apostles. Still more sublimely, Christ is present in the Church when it offers in his name the sacrifice of the Mass, and he is intimately present to the Church whenever it administers the sacraments.

All of these presences are, in their way, authentic, and they verify the basic concept we have when we speak of someone being present to us. He is present in all these ways because he is active in our regard, and his influence is experienced by those to whom be is present.

But the Real Presence is not only different from all the foregoing. It is also unique. It is the physical presence of Christ in our midst, no less truly than he is now present at the right hand of his Father. Consequently "this presence is called real--by which it is not intended to exclude all other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense. It is a substantial presence by which Christ, the God-man, is wholly and entirely present."⁷ If we would make a graphic comparison, there is as much difference between Christ's presence in the Blessed Sacrament and his presence elsewhere on earth as there was between his presence among the disciples when he appeared to them on Easter Sunday night and his presence in their midst before and after the appearance.