Communion choice

[Brian Stoffregen]

If the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul wanted us to use juice in the cup, they would have used the word "trux" which was around during their time.  Also, as the Supper was within the context of the Passover meal, wine (yayin) would have been used.  Jesus used specific elements.  It is not for us to change those elements.

Where does the scripture say that wine was used?

[Team Hesse]

If the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul wanted us to use juice in the cup, they would have used the word "trux" which was around during their time.  Also, as the Supper was within the context of the Passover meal, wine (yayin) would have been used.  Jesus used specific elements.  It is not for us to change those elements.

Where does the scripture say that wine was used?

A wooden literalism in the service of skepticism.....the preferred modus operandi of this correspondent.


Lou

[Donald_Kirchner]

Sorry about the confusion, Mr. Austin.

My question to you regarding the pre-consecrated, profane elements being signs, how so? Signs of what?

Thanks.

As you await Pr Hesse's reading recommendations, I invite you to look to the Lord's clear words, "This is My Body." The Book of Concord is clear. Sasse's "This Is My Body" is excellent.

[SomeoneWrites]

Why did you come to that conclusion rather than accepting Jesus' words for what they said and seeing the passover meal as a foreshadow (i.e. reading the OT through the lens of the NT rather than vice versa)?  Just curious.

... Fletch

Actually, I do see it as a foreshadowing.  From what I think Christianity is if it is true -

The passover meal commemorates what actually happened in Egypt.
The meal is filled with symbols including a lamb, which eaten, points to the actual lamb's blood that was smeared over the door posts of the house, which delivered the people from death.
The Eucharist is filled with symbols including the bread and wine, whrich are are consumed, pointing to the blood of Christ which delivered the people from death.

The Lord's cup is taken in the context of the other cups at the passover.  Basically Maunday Thursday was a new "passover," and it's the Lord's cup which matters.

Ceremonial Eating for memorials is also found in why they don't eat the sinew of the hip joint.  That is in memory of Jacob wrestling with God. 

Also taking Jesus at his word is like when people teach of other things of the passover.  "This is this, and that is that." While Charoset (and other things) is probably a novelty, every aspect of the passover is a symbolic element for memory.  The bitter herbs for the bitterness of slavory.
The "wine" is the blood that is shed for you for the forgiveness of your sins.  The blood of Christ was shed at the cross, paying for sins of all time.  It makes more sense that there's faith in THAT.

Paul appears to be speaking symbolically about the body of Christ when he's talking about discerning the body.  Applying that to support the Lutheran/Roman/Orthodox view seems shoehorned. 

Looking at the Early Church https://onefold.wordpress.com/early-church-evidence-refutes-real-presence/

I think the connections to real presence are one of the earliest Church errors that made it through the system.   

[pearson]

1. I was paraphrasing the statement, attributed to St. Augustine, that a sacrament is "outward sign of inward grace", which is the best summation of a sacrament in a sentence that I can think of. Does it convey the full breadth of our eucharistic theology? No, but that would take a book to do, and while I would enjoy such a book, I have no desire to type it.

Augustine's use of the concept "sign" is complex, and he changes his mind about its application during his lifetime, depending on whether he is contesting with Donatists, Pelagians, Manichaeans, or others.  But you're on the right track; Augustine does seem to make a distinction between what a "sign" is and what a "sacrament" is.  If I remember correctly, it was Pope Gelasius I who somewhat later established what was to become the western orthodox understanding of the relationship between "sign" and "sacrament," namely, that the two were inseparable, that the sign was embodied in the sacrament, and that the sign was not something distinct from the sacrament itself.  It was an incarnational model of the sacrament, which amounts to a rejection of Augustine's position.  Lutherans (and Luther himself), never quite sure what to do with Augustine's distinction, have tended to follow the western orthodox understanding of the sacrament.  It's another reason to be cautious when indiscriminately labeling Luther as an "Augustinian."

3. I was highlighting the distinction between the promises of the Lord and the "means" used for their proclamation in the context of certainty. Our certainty is in the promise and grace of God, not the bread and wine.

As a Lutheran, I'd rather you didn't highlight the distinction.  For Lutherans, there is no separation between the "promises of the Lord" and the "means."  Lutherans historically have been inclined to flinch away from the notion that the sacramental "means" of grace are simply a container for, or a mode of communication for, or a style of presentation for, or a device for the "proclamation in the context of certainty" for, the real stuff of grace (i.e., the "promises of the Lord"), which somehow lurk behind the sacramental "means."  The "means" just are the promises delivered; there is no distinction.  For Lutherans, anyway.
   

4. As a Lutheran, I believe Christ's body and blood are present in the elements after consecration. I do not believe there is, or needs to be, a change in the substance of the elements to accomplish that.

In trying to reconcile these two sentences, I could use a little more clarity.  Lutherans have traditionally held that the substance of the bread and the wine remain the substance of bread and wine throughout the Eucharistic consecration and afterward, but that the consecration also renders the bread and wine as the true, historical, physical body and blood of Jesus Christ (and Lutherans don't profess to know exactly what sort of process is actually described by that word "renders" there) now received by faithful participants in the Body of Christ.  Is that what you're saying?         

Tom Pearson

[NCLutheran2]

Sorry about the confusion, Mr. Austin.

My question to you regarding the pre-consecrated, profane elements being signs, how so? Signs of what?

Thanks.

As you await Pr Hesse's reading recommendations, I invite you to look to the Lord's clear words, "This is My Body." The Book of Concord is clear. Sasse's "This Is My Body" is excellent.

Pastor Kirchner,

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. My comments were in the context of certainty, namely that our certainty is in the promises of Christ rather than the elements themselves. That doesn't mean that elements are unimportant, or that the utmost care shouldn't be taken in our selection of those elements, but that the promise of Christ is what makes the sacrament a sacrament.

I have often found that whenever someone says something in the Bible is clear, it is anything but.

[NCLutheran2]

Augustine's use of the concept "sign" is complex, and he changes his mind about its application during his lifetime, depending on whether he is contesting with Donatists, Pelagians, Manichaeans, or others.  But you're on the right track; Augustine does seem to make a distinction between what a "sign" is and what a "sacrament" is.  If I remember correctly, it was Pope Gelasius I who somewhat later established what was to become the western orthodox understanding of the relationship between "sign" and "sacrament," namely, that the two were inseparable, that the sign was embodied in the sacrament, and that the sign was not something distinct from the sacrament itself.  It was an incarnational model of the sacrament, which amounts to a rejection of Augustine's position.  Lutherans (and Luther himself), never quite sure what to do with Augustine's distinction, have tended to follow the western orthodox understanding of the sacrament.  It's another reason to be cautious when indiscriminately labeling Luther as an "Augustinian."

Very interesting information, thank you, Mr. (Pr.?) Pearson.

As a Lutheran, I'd rather you didn't highlight the distinction.  For Lutherans, there is no separation between the "promises of the Lord" and the "means."  Lutherans historically have been inclined to flinch away from the notion that the sacramental "means" of grace are simply a container for, or a mode of communication for, or a style of presentation for, or a device for the "proclamation in the context of certainty" for, the real stuff of grace (i.e., the "promises of the Lord"), which somehow lurk behind the sacramental "means."  The "means" just are the promises delivered; there is no distinction.  For Lutherans, anyway.

Well, I'm a Lutheran, and I think the distinction is important  I choose to highlight the distinctions in the spirit of "keeping the main thing, the main thing", or to avoid the temptation that something that we do is seen equally with what God does for us. I can think of many examples where something that was originally a preference became a custom and then became ensconced with so many pious ponderings and trappings that it became elevated to the level of Godliness, with the fact that it was a preference was totally forgotten. As beautiful or traditional as something may be, the Gospel that it points to should be paramount.

In trying to reconcile these two sentences, I could use a little more clarity.  Lutherans have traditionally held that the substance of the bread and the wine remain the substance of bread and wine throughout the Eucharistic consecration and afterward, but that the consecration also renders the bread and wine as the true, historical, physical body and blood of Jesus Christ (and Lutherans don't profess to know exactly what sort of process is actually described by that word "renders" there) now received by faithful participants in the Body of Christ.  Is that what you're saying?     

Yes. You are more eloquent than I.

[readselerttoo]

from The Smalcald Articles:  "Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians."

Regardless of any sophism, this is what I teach.  Teaching anything other than this should render one in another alien confession, imo.

[FrPeters]

orthodox understanding of the relationship between "sign" and "sacrament

Lutherans insist that the sacrament conveys the thing that it signs.  Nothing less will do.

I'm a Lutheran, and I think the distinction is important

Is there another Christ than the one whose flesh we eat and whose blood we drink?  Is there another Christ than the one into whom we are joined by baptismal water so that we can say we have been crucified and die with Him and rise with Him?  I find curious the concern for distinguishing Christ from the means.  It is a bit like distinguishing the part of Christ who is mortal from the part who is divine.  We certainly assign to each nature the characteristics that belong to it but we do not divide Christ.  For Lutherans, this is the key to understanding the sacramental presence of Christ in the means of grace.

I had a fellow accuse me of failing to preach Christ because I spoke of the baptismal promise made with the deceased whom I did not know very well at all but whom I had baptized a week before the man's death.  It was incredible to me that a Lutheran could put such a distinction between Christ and the means of grace.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen writes:
I am told that the little amount of alcohol in Communion wine should not endanger a recovering alcoholics recover.  If the recovering alcoholic agrees fine.  But I would not want to burden his conscience or make Communion something to face with fear by insisting.

I comment:
You were misinformed. But it is good that you do not wish to endanger someone's recovery by insisting that communion be alcoholic wine.

[Charles Austin]

Lou writes:
One Pastor Austin is enough....
I muse:
Actually, there is more than one, although we are not related. But you are quite correct, the one Pastor Austin you have in this modest forum is enough to provide all the correction, encouragement, inspiration and whimsy that this forum needs. Thank you. You're welcome.

[Steven Tibbetts]

If the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul wanted us to use juice in the cup, they would have used the word "trux" which was around during their time.  Also, as the Supper was within the context of the Passover meal, wine (yayin) would have been used.  Jesus used specific elements.  It is not for us to change those elements.

Where does the scripture say that wine was used?

Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Where does the scripture say that wine was used?

A wooden literalism in the service of skepticism.....the preferred modus operandi of this correspondent.

I, too, have frequently noted Pastor Stoffregen's wooden literalism, though unlike a "Fair Witness" in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, he is very selective (which is similar to, but not the same as, "inconsistent") in his use of it.

[readselerttoo]

If the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul wanted us to use juice in the cup, they would have used the word "trux" which was around during their time.  Also, as the Supper was within the context of the Passover meal, wine (yayin) would have been used.  Jesus used specific elements.  It is not for us to change those elements.

Where does the scripture say that wine was used?

Matthew 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18.

Nice!

[Team Hesse]

Lou writes:
One Pastor Austin is enough....
I muse:
Actually, there is more than one, although we are not related. But you are quite correct, the one Pastor Austin you have in this modest forum is enough to provide all the correction, encouragement, inspiration and whimsy that this forum needs. Thank you. You're welcome.

Oh, if only you were as adept at best construction when someone or something other than yourself was the subject of the locution....


Lou