How Hard It Is To Speak About The Real Presence

To People Who Think They Have It!

A real life email exchange with one who posted a critical comment about one who hold the simple teaching of the Real Presence as taught by the Lutheran Church.  I sent this brief comment and Q&A from the synod's webpage that began this exchange.

This is what your synod believes.

Al Loeschman

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].

KK wrote:

I'm sorry... was this in response to something I had posted at some point?
 
*~K~*

Dear K,

Yes.  "When Lutherans Get Goofy" on Paul McCains blog.

You expressed defense of "Living Christ in the elements of the sacrament" rather than the orthodox view of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine.

The quote is what the LCMS believes.

There is a longer article on Concordtx.org under the Lord's Supper section that explains our Lutheran position over against what I call the "lutheran concomitantists."  They try to make the issue into a Christological one when it is a simple Bible interpretation matter.  "What does the Bible (and the Confessions) actually say is received by the communicant?"  Bread and wine; body and blood.  Not the whole and living Christ in the same way we receive the bread/body and wine/blood.

Pastor Loeschman
 

Pr. Loeschman,
 
The giving of only one kind in Holy Communion, which Luther rejected and concerning which you reference the SA, says nothing whatsoever rejecting the notion of Jesus present in the bread and wine, nor does it attempt to divide the natures of Christ.  All Lutherans, believing in the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament do indeed speak of his body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine; and they are certainly not going Roman Catholic and anti-Hus on this point.  Your article is misleading by suggesting otherwise, or suggesting a lack of trust in the Words of Institution or the adherence to the Lutheran Confessions.  Your dichotomy of the location of Christ versus the time of his presence to try to explain away the clarifying Luther quote sounds-- forgive me-- nonsense.  I am far from convinced that your position represents historic orthodox Lutheranism or the LC-MS position.
 
And are you in the habit of taking your "one-man crusade," as you call it, to everyone who posts on a topic on a discussion forum... three months ago?
 
*~K~*
 

Dear K,

The giving of one kind is an abuse resulting from the notion that the living Christ is corporeally present in the bread and wine in the same way as are His body and blood. 

No true Lutheran attempts to divide the natures of Christ.  To acknowledge the difference between the sacramental presence of His body and blood in the bread and wine and the personal union is simply good theology.... a matter of distinctions, and not fine ones, at that.  This is basic.

I am not wrong suggesting that many in the LCMS have leaned towards Rome.  I knew Piepkorn at sem in the early 60s.  Already then he and his disciples, many of whom went with Seminex, to ELCA and to pursuing full communion with Rome.  Even today many young seminarians love Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy, not just for their ceremony, but for the doctrines that are so mystical.

I don't suggest that lutheran concomitantists mistrust the Words of Institution; they just add to them.  "Take eat, this is My body and Me."  Give me a Bible passage that even intimates this, and I will instantly convert.

You may not be convinced that this is the Lutheran position, but it is the LCMS's position, as per the quote from the Q&A webpage.  Read the Pieper quote again.  This is Lutheran.

Three months ago.... I will call people back to the truth for as long as it takes.

Blessings,

Pr. L.

I'm sorry, I'm sure you're intentions are good, but I also know the look of someone seeking a fight, who fancies themselves the sole defender of truth.  We Lutherans can get that way sometimes, especially the ones mortally afraid of Rome or the ones lovesick over it.  Confessional Lutherans do not, and never will, practice or advocate one kind only.  Concomitance is the argument for the false conclusion made by Rome that because Jesus is present in the bread and the wine, that communing in only one kind is a fine practice.  Being afraid of Lutherans leaning Catholic does not lend credence to your logic-- instead it undoes it.  You don't want Lutherans communing in one kind only and turning RC, so this leads you to deny Jesus's sacramental presence-- all because of a church body that took this to a faulty conclusion.  That's not how theology is done.

 
Separating Christ from his own body and blood is absurd and the opposite error to Rome.  Who needs to even suggest something so obvious as "this is my body and me"?  Neither Jesus nor any other human beings talk like that.  When we teach "the resurrection of the body," are we saying that Christ is just raising up our dead bodies, and not us as a whole, complete person?  How silly!  And as far as Bible interpretation goes... quite fundamentalist.  (I'm a former one myself.)  If your "basic Lutheran theology" were so basic, you'd hardly be a one-man crusade on this.
 
Please do not continue e-mailing me.  You e-mailed me initially assuming that you knew what "my synod" teaches before you started to quoting LC-MS sources.  My synod is not LC-MS.  I don't know you personally, and your approach is almost as improper as your assumptions.
 
~K~

Dear K,

I am sorry that you are unable to supply me with any Scripture to accomplish my conversion to lutheran concomitance.  You may remain in your denial, but I will continue to remain in my fundamental trust in the Words of Institution my divine and human Savior spoke and still speaks so clearly, plainly, powerfully.

You and others continue to misunderstand that the sacramental presence does not involve the mode of spiritual presence that is how Christ Himself is present before and after the consecration.  Your confusion leads you wrong belief. 

You and others sadly refuse to reject the DOCTRINE that one kind, Corpus Christi festivals, adoration of the host etc. lead to.  The doctrine of concomitance is that, not the abusive practices that the DOCTRINE produces.  You may not practice these abuses now, but some of them are making their way in the Lutheran church even now.  What got me going on my one man crusade is a so-called Lutheran prison chaplain giving one kind communion and using the same reasoning as the Romans.

I have no great fear of the Romans.  I grew up in San Antonio.  My best friend was a Catholic.  I used his High School Religion text as a source for my basic understanding of concomitance.  The diagram on the webpage is from that text.  I think we have greater danger from Baptimethicostal doctrine and practice that from Rome.  But that does not mean we should tolerate Roman error.

Blessings,
Pr. L.

 

And I am sorry that you are persisting in your un-Lutheran claim that Jesus is separately present from his dead body and blood.  Actually, I'm sorry I even bothered replying to you in the first place, since you didn't bother to get your facts straight on me, much less historic Lutheran belief.  You still think that speaking of the presence of Jesus will make all Lutherans will start communing in one kind, which is ridiculous.  Your prison chaplain was just that-- a SO-CALLED Lutheran, not one who supports what our confessions claim, which is an abject refusal of one kind only.  Are you also against statues in church, because they might possibly lead to un-Lutheran abuses?  Iconoclasm, too, results from a skewed Christology.  I'm not saying that there isn't a Lutheran or two who reach wrong conclusions.  But that doesn't mean we invent philosophical separations of Christ to avoid those conclusions, leading to even more incorrect teaching.

 
If you're looking for Scripture where Jesus says, "This is my body and by the way guys, that means me, you know", you should be able to hear how ridiculous and therefore obviously fruitless your search is going to be.  But here are some clear verses, nonetheless, though I daresay if you persist in your opinion you will find every way possible to try to explain them away based on your presupposition.
 
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." -Luke 22:19
 
They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.  -1 Cor. 10:3-4 
 
"For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread." Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty."  -John 6:33-35
 
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me."  -John 6:53-57
 
"For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life."  -Leviticus 17:11
 
"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us."  -John 1:14

 
*~K~*

As this person has requested, I am not responding by email.  It is not wise nor polite to force oneself on others, even if they need to hear what you have to say.

Because I don't know what synod this person belongs to is no reason for my argument about the Real Presence to be rejected out of hand and the conversation to be broken off.  (The ELCA is already a long way down the path to doctrinal disintegration.) 

This person seems to be getting what the Lord, St. Paul, LCMS and I are saying: "Jesus is separately present from his dead body and blood."  The LCMS says: "...we receive in, with, and under the bread and wine the true body and blood of Christ shed on the cross..."  This says what we receive with our mouth. The LCMS Q&A guy continues: "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" is present. It is clear from the Formula explanation that the Sacramental Union is a corporeal (bodily, substantial) presence of His body and blood in the bread and wine as opposed to the "spiritual presence" of Christ the person "in the sacrament."

The phrase "in the sacrament" can mean several things, but in most of the references it is clear from the context that it means "in the use and action" of the sacrament, not "in the elements of the sacrament."  This is similar to the phrase that many "lutheran concomitantists" refer to in the Confessions: "Christ is present with His body and blood."  "With" they understand to mean "in."  Yet "with" has the common meaning of "accompanying" or "in the same location as."  So we can readily confess that Christ is present in the same location with His body and blood in the bread and wine.  How could it be otherwise?  Without Christ's power in the Word the bread would remain simply bread.

The search for a Bible text that indicates that Christ Himself as a person is present in the bread and wine will indeed be fruitless.  But are the texts K quotes "clear" passages as claimed? 

Remembering Christ as we commune is not a proof that Christ is alive and whole in the bread and wine.

Indeed the rock was Christ!  But was their drinking from the rock a reference to the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper?  No.  It is a reference to the faith of the Israelites.  Note that Paul refers to the "spiritual food and drink."  Yes, we do have Christ as our spiritual food and drink, but we have Him as such even before the Supper, or we commune unworthily.  Faith precedes communing.

As every Lutheran should know, John 6 has never been accepted as a text that speaks of the Real Presence.  Why people continue to push this is beyond me.  John 6 is not clear whether it is about the Sacrament or not since there are many questions that would arise if it were, and that is the reason Lutherans have not based their doctrine of the Lord's Supper on John 6.  Only clear passages about the matter establish doctrine.

I cannot fathom why K would list the last two passages.  The first establishes the truth of my contention.  It is not the blood of the living sacrifice that atones for sins, but the blood that results in the death of the sacrifice.  The Logos did become flesh and live among us men during His life on earth.  It is the assumed body and blood that He offers us in the bread and wine of the Supper, not His whole and entire self, body and soul, humanity and divinity.  The latter is what Roman Catholics are taught.  Lutherans reject this and the abuses that this doctrine of concomitance leads to.