Who actually has the Lord's Supper? That is a question that doesn't get asked too often. Of course, every church body that administers the Lord's Supper thinks it has it. In fact, it would seem that churches who have a lower view of the Lord's Supper pretty much assume that every Christian church has it because after all, it is only bread and wine (or crackers and grape juice), and a bare remembrance of Christ's work on our behalf.
As Lutherans, we take a different stance on this question. In short, we see the plain reading and meaning of the Words of Institution as paramount. In other words, if a church reads the Words of Institution and their doctrine is that the Words of Institution actually mean what they say, they have the Lord's Supper. It is valid. Thus, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, and some Anglicans (mainly Tractarian churches) have a valid Eucharist. Examples of churches that do not have a valid Eucharist would be mainstream Evangelical churches, any Baptist church, the Methodists, Wesleyans, and yes, even the Reformed churches, who confess a completely different sort of presence where the believer is lifted up to heaven by faith.
On the other hand, if a church reads the Words of Institution as "This is a symbol of My body" or something along those lines, they do not even have the Lord's Supper. It's something else. Or as they say themselves, it's just bread and grape juice. The same goes for any aberrant doctrine that rejects the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Consider St. Paul's warnings in his first epistle to the Corinthians.
When we say these things, we are simply agreeing with the churches themselves that they do not believe that the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ. Thus, they do not partake of the Lord's Supper.
Consider a parallel to Holy Baptism. When we baptize, we invoke the Triune Name of God. People are baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. In other words, baptism is into the Name of the Trinity.
The same parallel applies here. If a church baptizes persons into the Name of the Trinity and actually holds to the doctrine of the true biblical Trinity, it is a valid Baptism. Hence, the majority of churches that call themselves Christian have a valid baptism because they actually believe the words spoken in Baptism. They confess the doctrine of the Trinity.
Here is an example of a church that does not: Latter Day Saints, or Mormons. The LDS church baptizes into the Name of the Triune God but they do not confess the Trinity. In fact, they believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different gods. Hence, a Mormon baptism is invalid.
To have a valid baptism, church must utilize the Triune formula as well as confess the doctrine of the Trinity. Or else, what they are doing is not baptism. Likewise, in the Lord's Supper, a church must utilize the Words of Institution as well as confess what the Words of Institution actually mean; that this bread is the body of Christ and that this wine is the blood of Christ. If not, what the church is doing is not the Lord's Supper. It's pretty simple really.
Far from being sectarian and asinine, we are simply agreeing with what those churches actually confess regarding the Lord's Supper (or Baptism, in the case of the LDS). They themselves will tell us that the bread is NOT the body of Christ and the wine (or juice) is NOT the blood of Christ. Therefore, it is not the Lord's Supper and no member of a Lutheran church should be communing at these churches.
I'm pretty sure many believers in these churches that reject the Real Presence will be up in arms about this idea, but again, we are simply agreeing with what they themselves believe and confess.
Pretty straightforward.
+Pax+
Well reasonsed.
ReplyDeleteBruce Zittlow
Yes it's fairly obvious if a Baptism took place and a sect said "by father, son and Holy Spirit we mean three different modes" no Christian church would accept that as baptism. Therefore it ought be rather obvious concerning the supper when it is tought that is means represents or body means something symbolic. For the same false error is asserted that in both cases they are symbolic of something else. Even further this is how all gnostic type heresies work, as in Christ only appeared to be human.
ReplyDeleteOnce we locate the heresy we can locate the synergism and hence the cryptic works righteousness. E.g. In Calvin the synergism is in the supper because how do you close the gap TO God for you? Well as Calvin clearly states you elevate your mind (the work and cryptic synergism) to then and only then commune with Christ where you receive the forgiveness of sin (it's a work of the mind via the ideal/Platonism), which is of course the thing sought and the merit for the done of said elevation of the mind. The unbeliever, per Calvin, receive this nought. Why? He did not do the work.
Luther says God comes all the way down and is indeed the sacrament and gospel himself, the unbeliever par takes as well because there is no work he simply despises it unto wrath as if nothing just like Christ on the cross is not seen as God.
The denial of the sacraments are linked to the denial of the incarnation and this is why Luther so clearly saw in Zwingli the same denial of the gospel as in the papacy, two wolves tied at the tail.
Bondage of the will speaks as much against Calvin as it does against Erasmus, not many Lutherans today see this.