Is the United Methodist Church going to ban the Lord's Prayer?

“From what I read about Lutheran theology, they reject the Mass and state that in the Last Supper the bread remains bread. Please explain how the Holy Eucharist is celebrated and consecrated into the Real Presence of Christ?”

I don’t know what you read, but that’s VERY wrong.

From the Augsburg Confession (the basic Lutheran statement of belief):

“Article X. Of the Lord’s Supper.
Of the Supper of the Lord [Lutherans] teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.”

“Article XXIV. Of the Mass.
Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among us, and celebrated with the highest reverence...”

From the Defense of the Augsburg Confession:

“Article X. Of the Holy Supper.
The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.”

Your own comment clearly states: “ He is saying that on the physical plane, the consecrated bread and wine are just that; but in the Spirit (when one takes the Supper worthily), they ARE the body and blood of Christ because He said so—”this is my body, this is my blood”, reflected in the passages cited in bold and also below, to which I’ve attached a verse or two to make the point more clear:”

How can the bread and wine if not miraculously changed by Jesus through the actions of the priest at Mass into His Body and Blood be the real presence of Jesus? Jesus did not say eat the bread and spiritually that is the same as eating and drinking His flesh and Blood?

So how can one former priest change the Catholic faith of the Mass and Eucharist by his word? He had no authority from God or the Church?

You stated: “I corrected your misinformation about orthodox Lutheranism on this thread against your insistence that your beliefs are superior—aaaaand now we are back where we started.”

I do believe in God’s truths that were delegated to St. Peter and his successor bishops and priests to preach, interpret the Bible and baptize all nations.

The above states “but in the Spirit” and the catholic faith recognizes spiritual communion but it is not the same as the Eucharist in eating the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus.

I am not trying to say I am better but to raise objective questions about God’s truth as passed down for 2000 years. I do believe that many have been poorly catechized (even Catholics) and many have been taught false beliefs. I am just trying to understand.

I agree that only God can give one the graces to fully understand and accept His truth but we can gain more knowledge and understanding from others.

May God also continue to Bless you and give His Peace.

this was posted. from Gospel and Scripture https://files.lcms.org/file/preview/DBC5134E-3A2A-4A53-B9DC-A215CBB5DE70

From the Lutheran website MO (that Albion posted).
“Luther rejects the Mass as a horrible
abomination because it runs in direct conflict with the chief article of our faith (SA II, ii, 1), but he holds that in the Holy Supper the bread remains bread simply on grounds that this teaching “is in perfect agreement with
Holy Scriptures,” namely 1 Cor. 10: 16 and 11: 28. (SA III, vi, 5) “ Page 7 Gospel and Scripture

My comments:
So bread is bread that indicates that it is not the Body and Blood of Christ. The bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ when it is consecrated by the Catholic priest at Mass. The Church retains the undistributed consecrated hosts in the Tabernacle for sick members to receive outside of Mass. If there is no Mass, then I am certain that there is truly no Body and Blood of Christ present?

From post 70 Albion Wilde
He is saying that on the physical plane, the consecrated bread and wine are just that; but in the Spirit (when one takes the Supper worthily), they ARE the body and blood of Christ because He said so—”this is my body, this is my blood”

Please explain: If the Lutherans do not have priests and bishops as successors of the Apostles and how they have authority to say the Mass and consecrate the Bread and Wine into the Sacrament of the Eucharist why do they say they teach the Body and Blood are truly present? Spiritually? How did they get this authority after 1500 Years?

Haven’t read that whole publication of course, but the word “mass” doesn’t appear so in a search so not sure where you’re getting that from.

The saying bread remains bread is true - in contradistinction from the Catholic position of transubstantiation. Lutherans believe that the consecrated host is bread AND Christ’s body; that the consecrated wine is wine AND Christ’s blood. To say that the bread is ONLY bread would be false. To say that the bread is bread is true. We jsut don’t feel the need to dive into Greek philosophy to try to explain the “how.” Jesus called it both his blood and the fruit of the vine, Paul said the bread was a participation in the body, etc. So we take bread and say that bread is Jesus’s body and we take wine and say that wine is Jesus’s blood - just as Jesus did.

I’m sure thet the “horrible abomination” quote is also highly context-dependent. I’m not sure what the context is.

Next, there’s nothing in scripture that requires apostolic succession for mass to be valid. So where do they get the authority? Who says a pastor/priest needs some sort of authority? It’s not like any human has the ability to transform the bread and wine into anything. God is the sole actor. That being said, we probably do have apostolic succession through priests that became Evangelical (the name Lutherans chose for themselves before Lutheran was derogatorily foisted on them, which stuck). Luther was a Catholic priest after all. So we reject your assertion that there is no mass. (My Lutheran church also does have a tabernacle, though I acknowledge that is rather unusual).

But generally we acknowledge that a pastor is one called by the congregation:

From the Augsburg Confession:
“Article XIV - Of Ecclesiastical Order.
Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.”

From the Defense of the Augsburg Confession:
“Article XIV. Of Ecclesiastical Order.
The Fourteenth Article, in which we say that in the Church the administration of the Sacraments and Word ought to be allowed no one unless he be rightly called, they receive, but with the proviso that we employ canonical ordination. Concerning this subject we have frequently testified in this assembly that it is our greatest wish to maintain church-polity and the grades in the Church [old church-regulations and the government of bishops], even though they have been made by human authority [provided the bishops allow our doctrine and receive our priests]. For we know that church discipline was instituted by the Fathers, in the manner laid down in the ancient canons, with a good and useful intention. But the bishops either compel our priests to reject and condemn this kind of doctrine which we have confessed, or, by a new and unheard-of cruelty, they put to death the poor innocent men. These causes hinder our priests from acknowledging such bishops. Thus the cruelty of the bishops is the reason why the canonical government, which we greatly desired to maintain, is in some places dissolved. Let them see to it how they will give an account to God for dispersing the Church. In this matter our consciences are not in danger, because since we know that our Confession is true, godly, and catholic, we ought not to approve the cruelty of those who persecute this doctrine. And we know that the Church is among those who teach the Word of God aright, and administer the Sacraments aright, and not with those who not only by their edicts endeavor to efface God’s Word, but also put to death those who teach what is right and true; towards whom, even though they do something contrary to the canons, yet the very canons are milder. Furthermore, we wish here again to testify that we will gladly maintain ecclesiastical and canonical government, provided the bishops only cease to rage against our Churches. This our desire will clear us both before God and among all nations to all posterity from the imputation against us that the authority of the bishops is being undermined, when men read and hear that, although protesting against the unrighteous cruelty of the bishops, we could not obtain justice.”

the Lutheran Missouri website on page 7 Gospel and Scripture quotes :
“Luther rejects the Mass as a horrible
abomination because it runs in direct conflict with the chief article of our faith (SA II, ii, 1), but he holds that in the Holy Supper the bread remains bread simply on grounds that this teaching “is in perfect agreement with
Holy Scriptures,” namely 1 Cor. 10: 16 and 11: 28. (SA III, vi, 5) “

If Bread is Bread, then it is not the Body and Blood of Jesus? Jesus told us to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood for our eternal life, not to eat bread. John 6:53

Yes, the Catholic faith uses the term transubstantiation to indicate that the bread and wine are converted in a miracle by the priest acting for Jesus into the Body, Blood, Soul and divinity of Jesus at the consecration at Mass while it retains the accidents and taste of bread and wine.

What happens to the left-over bread at a Lutheran service? I am glad that you have a Tabernacle, but I am also aware of some feeding it to chickens.

Jesus established His Church and authorized Peter and his successors to build his church with the authority to bind and loose. That is to organize and run his church on earth and it would be bound in Heaven. They have done so for 2000 years. Obviously human men even as priests and bishops make mistakes and can be sinful and do evil things but this was just some and not the whole church. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and I believe they have kept God’s truth as our catholic faith. As Peter said to Jesus: “Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life;”

As the establishment of the Lutheran Church by an excommunicated priest named Luther with contradicting beliefs to what Jesus taught and expressed in the Bible. I don’t believe that Jesus or the Bible gave him authority to do so.

I do feel that the Lutheran and other churches provide many of God’s teachings and truth. I hope it can come to the fullness of God’s truth.

You said “Next, there’s nothing in scripture that requires apostolic succession for mass to be valid” However, Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus clearly authorizes Peter and his successors to build his Church. I do not see any other authorization for someone to build another church.

Should there be multiple churches with different teachings? How do we unify so that there is only God’s truth? How do we get the humility to put God first?

The Catholic Church has certainly had its problems over the years and even today many issues, but Jesus said He would be with us until the end of the age. Salvation is a process to become holy and Jesus gave us the Catholic Church and the 7 sacraments to guide us. We need to adore and believe in the words of Jesus in a unified manner to join him in Heaven.

God Bless.

Thanks for providing the page there. So the source is the Smalcald Articles, and as I said before, context, context, context. If you look up the cited section of the Smalcald Articles, it is a lengthy discussion about abuses of the Mass. Too long to include in a post, but go here. https://bookofconcord.org/smalcald-articles/ii/of-the-mass/ Also he is distinguishing the sacrament from the Mass – so it seems in context here by Mass Luther is referring to the liturgy/ritual/use of the service itself, not the sacrament. I’m not sure what the LCMS’s purpose of that in that report is, but they probably should have been clearer. It’s not about the mass itself per se.

You say “If Bread is Bread, then it is not the Body and Blood of Jesus?” Sorry, false dichotomy. “Both” is an option. For example: “If Jesus is Man, then is he not God?” Of course he his. Jesus is man and God. Just like in communion, the bread is bread AND body. That’s the only way to harmonize Jesus calling the wine his blood but then after consecration, still calling it the fruit of the vine. And of course other verses such as Paul’s teaching back this up. Later in the Smallcald articles is “As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread.” Article 6. I think this was also cited.

Leftover elements are either saved for the next service, consumed, or brought to sick and shut-ins, I presume based on how much there is.

“Jesus established His Church and authorized Peter and his successors to build his church with the authority to bind and loose. That is to organize and run his church on earth and it would be bound in Heaven.” No disagreement there.

“As the establishment of the Lutheran Church by an excommunicated priest named Luther with contradicting beliefs to what Jesus taught and expressed in the Bible. I don’t believe that Jesus or the Bible gave him authority to do so.” Obviously going to disagree with you there though. Luther wanted to cleanse the church of the practices which had crept in over the few centuries previously, never to establish a church. Heck many Lutherans don’t call themselves protestant – some go so far as to call themselves Catholic. We didn’t leave the church, the church left us, type of view.

Had communication been better at the time, perhaps Luther would have become Eastern Orthodox – but the Patriarch of Constantinople (?) got annoyed at his letters and basically told him to stop writing.

“However, Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus clearly authorizes Peter and his successors to build his Church. I do not see any other authorization for someone to build another church.” LOTS of logical leaps from there to what the Catholic church has become though. Also implied are different definitions of “church.”

“Should there be multiple churches with different teachings? How do we unify so that there is only God’s truth? How do we get the humility to put God first?” Of course there shouldn’t be. But unfortunately we are where we are. I don’t think it’s always about arrogance, but about good faith disagreement.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.