The Joys of clarity on the Lord’s Supper from Scripture and our Confessions.

The Joys of clarity on the Lord’s Supper from Scripture and our Confessions.

In the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, our churches teach:

We believe that in the Lord’s Supper Christ’s body and blood are truly and substantially present and are truly administered with those things that are seen (bread and wine) to those who receive the Sacrament.   We constantly defend this belief as the subject has been carefully examined and considered.  Since Paul says, “The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?”  (1 Cor. 10:16), it would follow that if the Lord’s body were not truly present, the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit. We have determined that not only the Roman Church affirms Christ’s bodily presence. The Greek Church also now believes, and formerly believed, the same.” (Ap X, 54-55) 

When is the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ?  Some might say, not until the body and blood of Christ touches your lips.  But notice what Paul clearly states.  “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?”  Scripture is clear!  The bread and cup blessed by the Lord’s Words of institution are the Body and Blood of Christ before it has touched your lips.  It is in the consecration of the elements that it is the sacrament.  Remember that the elements are consecrated for the purpose of eating and drinking for the forgiveness of sin. 

What makes the Lord’s Supper what it is?  We answer: The Sacrament, instituted by Christ, comes into being not by the state of the administrant, nor by the faith of the communicants, but by the institution of Christ, which to the end of time exerts its power and wherever the Lord’s Supper is administered according to the institution of Christ. 

By way of illustration, the Formula of Concord, appropriating the words of Chrysostom (d. A.D. 407), says:

Christ Himself prepared this table and blesses it.  For no man makes the bread and wine set before us into Christ’s body and blood, only Christ Himself, who was crucified for us.  The words are spoken by the mouth of the priest.  But by God’s power and grace, by the word, where Christ says: ‘This is My body,’ the elements presented are consecrated in the Supper.  The declaration ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ [Genesis 1:28] was spoken only once.  But it is ever effective in nature, so that it is fruitful and multiplies.  So also this declaration, ‘This is My body; this My  blood,’ was spoken once.  But even to this day and up to His second coming it is effective and works so that in the Supper of the Church His true body and blood are present.” (FC SD VII, 76)” (Pieper’s Dogmatics vol. III, pg. 365.) 

Now some claim that the Lutheran teaching of the Lord’s Supper makes Jesus’ words of institution into “magic” or “hocus-pocus.” But this is to deny the pure word of God, that where the Word is proclaimed there it does its work as the Formula points out avove.    Because if Jesus’ Words of Institution that he speaks through the pastor are magic, then all miracles are magic. Your forgiveness is magical hocus pocus.  Indeed, your very salvation would be considered magic, but it is not!  It is the work of God through the Word.  We teach over and over.  The Word is efficacious (that is, it does what it says), not the person.  In fact, if any teaching relies more on magic it would be the teaching of receptionism.  To believe that it is by your lips taking on the bread and wine that it then becomes the body and blood of Christ would be to make you the magician, the magic force, thus making the sacrament no longer God’s work but the work of the person, your work! 

This is one reason why we practice closed communion.    If the Sacrament was only Christ’s body and blood when you took it your lips, then logically it doesn’t matter who takes it.  Believer and unbeliever could then take the Lord’s Supper because according to such rationale only the believer takes it because only believers would actually believe it is the Supper and thus do the good work of making the Supper the Supper.  It is a false conclusion if a receptionist says that it becomes the body and blood for both the believer and unbeliever, for the unbeliever does not believe it is the body and blood of Christ.  With that rationale it could even be ingested by a dog, thrown out on the ground to be eaten by birds, or thrown in the trash, because it is nothing apart from the believer.

Now one argument is that if you don’t believe in receptionism, then you believe in transubstantiation.  This is what the Reformed claim (i.e. Methodist/Baptist/Episcopal, etc.)

They sought to attach to the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper the offensiveness which Christians properly find in the Roman teaching of transubstantiation and the magical power to transubstantiate which is said to be given to the priest by his anointing.  They like to represent the matter as if, also according to Lutheran teaching the speaking of men and human authority affect the Real Presence.  Luther (and those who are given the title of consecrationist) opposes this misrepresentation and explains ever so often that it is not the speaking of men that causes Christ’s body and blood to be present, but solely Christ’s word of promise and command. (Christian Dogmatics, Pieper, vol. III, pg. 365)

To believe in receptionism is to say that the sacrament is based upon your faith or at worst is simply based upon the person!  Luther teaches,

“For the Sacrament is not founded upon people’s holiness, but upon God’s Word.  Just as no saint on earth, indeed, no angel in heaven, can make bread and wine be Christ’s body and blood, so also no one can change or alter it (claiming that it is only the body and blood when it is on your lips) even though it is misused.  The Word by which it became a Sacrament and was instituted does not become false because of the person or his unbelief.  For Christ does not say, “If you believe or are worthy, you receive My body and blood,” No, He says, “Take, eat and drink; this is My body and blood (BEFORE it has touched your lips.)”…For upon these words rests all our foundation, protection, and defense against all errors and deception that have ever come or may yet come (by those who would claim for example a belief in receptionism!)” (LC V, 16-19)

            Here lies another problem.  This bread and wine have been consecrated.  To consecrate something is to set it aside for holy use.  So what does it mean for something to be holy?  It means to be Sanctified, and since it is a holy thing, these elements which are consecrated are meant for one thing, to be eaten as Jesus tells us to do.  It cannot be the Lord’s Supper when you eat it, but rather when Christ’s Words are spoken over it.  Here is another important point.  When your pastor speaks the Words of institution, it is not your pastor who makes it the sacrament, it is Jesus Christ, because the Pastor works in the stead and by the command of Jesus Christ.  These words are not your pastor’s words, they are Jesus’ words. 

Another way to define consecration is: the act whereby bread and wine are detached from their ordinary use and appointed to the use in the Lord’s Supper, that is, are set apart to this end, that with the bread according to Christ’s promise, the body of Christ and with the wine, according to Christ’s promise, the blood of Christ be received. (Pieper, vol. 3 pg 366)  To claim that the consecration is a magical incantation is to fall into the opposite error, because then the Lord’s Supper would only have to do with persons and not with the sacramental elements.

But this is not what we teach and confess in the Small Catechism,

How Can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?  Answer: It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words, which are given here, “Give…and shed for you, for the forgiveness of sins.” This means that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words.  For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.” (SC, VI)

 If we are to believe in receptionism we would then be required to reject the clear teaching of Scripture and our confessions. 

Why would it be important to Paul to deliver the words of institution, if it is based upon the work of the believer? He says, “I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”  (1 Cor. 11:23-26)  If you don’t need the Words of Institution, why does Paul not be more specific that you need only say it to an individual person?  That is because it is meant to be spoken before the whole congregation!

Our true, historic, Scriptural confession of faith is important, in the Formula of Concord we read clearly, “We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper Christ’s body and blood are truly and essentially present, and that they are truly distributed and received with the bread and the wine.” (FC Ep VII, 6)  Note clearly, it is the body and blood of Christ before the reception of it.  This is not a Roman Catholic belief.  This is a catholic, universal belief to be confessed by all pastors and congregations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod.  We are also taught:

“Now about the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation of the minister produces this presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Holy Supper.  Instead, this presence is to be credited only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ. At the same time we also believe, teach, and confess unanimously that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of Christ’s institution should in no way be left out.  Instead they should be publicly recited, as it is written in 1 Corinthians 10:16, “The cup of blessing that we bless” and so forth.  This blessing occurs through the recitation of Christ’s words.”  (FC Ep VII, 8-9) 

To say it is not the body and blood of Christ before you eat and drink of it is to deny It is to say God’s Word is false or deceitful, which would destroy our whole confidence of salvation!  Again in the Solid Declaration, quoting Luther’s Large Catechism, “What’s Christ’s lips say and speak, so it is.  He can never lie or deceive…For the Sacrament is not founded upon people’s holiness, but upon God’s Word. (FC SD VII, 23-24)

This simple bread and wine is also the body and blood of Jesus in its consecration, because of Jesus’ words—not when you take it to your mouth. To disagree with such a clear statement is to agree with those who were pointed out as false teachers.  “Christ’s body is essentially present here on earth in the Supper, although invisibly and in a way beyond understanding.  It is received orally, with the consecrated bread, even by hypocrites or those who only appear to be Christians.” (FC SD VII, 8)  It should be noted, the whole purpose of the Formula of Concord was to write against those errors that had crept into the Lutheran church from both the Roman Catholic and Reformed.

We also do not consecrate an overabundance of the elements and call it good  Rather, we speak the Words of Institution every time the sacrament is offered, as our Confessions state,

“In the administration of the Holy Supper the words of institution are to be publicly spoken or sung before the congregation distinctly and clearly.  They should in no way be left out.  Obedience should be rendered to Christ’s command, “This do.”  The hearers’ faith about the nature and fruit of this Sacrament should be aroused, strengthened, and confirmed by Christ’s Word.  And, the elements of bread and wine should be consecrated or blessed for this holy use, so that Christ’s body and blood may be administered to us to be eaten and to be drunk, as Paul declares, “the cup of blessing that we bless” [1 Cor. 10:16]. This indeed happens in no other way than through the repetition and recitation of the words of institution.” (FC SD VII, 79-82)

Publicly means any time the Sacrament is administered, because it is not to ever be a private practice, for even in the administration to a shut-in they are part of the Church. 

Finally, we should also be sure to treat this sacrament with right reverence.  “Christ should be adored in spirit and in truth in the true use of the Sacrament, as He is in all other places, especially where His congregation is assembled.” (FC SD VII, 126)  All that is consecrated for use of the sacrament should be consumed so as not to create doubt and worry for the believers as to what one should do with those elements left over.  One should also note the first night that this sacrament was administered.  It was the night he celebrated the Passover with his disciples.  So on this night, nothing would have been left over of what Jesus had consecrated; it would have all been consumed or burned.  There would have been no sacrament left over to decide what to do with it. 

Receptionism and Consecrationism is not a matter of adiaphora.  You may claim that how the reliquae is dispensed of is adiaphora, and under certain circumstances it can be, but when it is couched together with things that are contrary to God’s Word, then this is a whole other issue.

These ceremonies then are not to be regarded as adiaphora in which one is free to do as he wants.  They must be avoided as things prohibited by God.  (This is the case when the refusal of the consumption of the elements is linked together with receptionism.)  In such a situation ceremonies should not be regarded as genuine free adiaphora, or matters of indifference…Likewise, when there are useless, foolish displays that are not profitable for good order, Christian discipline, or evangelical practice in the Church, these also are not genuine adiaphora, or matters of indifference. (FC SD X, 5-7)

Such is the case in the consumption of elements.  If someone makes the argument that the unleavened bread would have had crumbles, and asks what they should do with it, that sort of argument is not done out of reverence or charity to a Christian but is done to create confusion and hurt.  It is an attempt to badger and attack good order and evangelical practice.

The consumption of the elements is the historic practice of the Christian Church (even if it is not the short history of some churches).  The theology of it is also proper as it is in line with the night that our Lord instituted the Sacrament.  To consider the practice of consuming the elements dumb, or unscriptural makes it so that we must engage this practice because the opponents of it cannot produce a command or prohibition that it must not be done.  The Gospel is obscured and perverted by such compulsion or command (in this case, to believe in receptionism and therefore demand that the elements not be consumed after the sacrament), because such adiaphora (that of not consuming the elements) are publicly required for the approval of false doctrine, superstition, and idolatry, and for the suppression of pure doctrine and Christian liberty…The article about Christian freedom is at stake here…In this way, human traditions are multiplied and regarded as a divine worship not only equal to God’s ordinances, but even placed above them. (FC SD X, 14-15)

Consuming the reliquae right away is BEST practice (and the historical one) because it is the easiest way to keep the Lord's imperative (take eat... drink) and not burden anyone's conscience about what to do with the reliquae or whether or not the Lord is still present. The questions simply go away. GOOD practice is to treat the reliquae reverently and make sure they are disposed of reverently.  BAD practice is to simply act as if nothing had happened and simply return consecrated wine and wafers back to the shelf (Reformed/Calvinist), or to take consecrated elements and put them in a monstrance and worship/pray to them (Roman Catholicism) - both of which deny the Lord's institution and purpose for the Sacrament in their own way.  Rather when the elements are presented before you at the Pax Domini, we prepare ourselves to come and eat.

Even when we wash our vessels after the use of the Sacrament we do it deliberately and reverently with care for what we have consumed.  Does this take more time?  Yes, but again our concern is reverence and the strengthening of faith in what the Lord’s Supper is.  Not consuming the reliquae is a practice introduced into our church that has been sugar-coated as good.  But our confessions again say,

“Furthermore, idolaters are confirmed in their idolatry by such yielding and conforming to outward things, where there has not previously been Christian unity in doctrine.  On the other hand, true believers are grieved, offended, and weakened in their faith.    Every Christian, for the sake of his soul’s welfare and salvation, is bound to avoid both of these as it is written: “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! (Matt 18:7) So everyone who acknowledges Me before men, I also will acknowledge before My Father who is in heaven.” (Matt 10:32) (FC SD X, 16-17). 

If you are looking for Christian unity over the history of the Church, the practice of consuming the elements is it, but as long as one does not demand different on the basis of false doctrine, it may be accepted as long as we are not in period of crisis in which doctrine is being attacked.

The bread and wine that has been set apart for holy use is to be used for holy use, eat and drink it.  It is not wrong to revere that which has been consecrated just like when we bow at the Gloria Patria as the crucifix passes before us, or as we make the sign of the cross, because we are giving thanks for what Jesus has done.  This is not Roman Catholic, but indeed a catholic practice that Luther and the Reformers taught long ago that we should continue to do.

If bread and wine stops being the body and blood of Christ then let us treat it crassly and dump the unused wine down the drain into the sewer of filth and throw the uneaten bread outside for the deer to trample and the birds to eat.  But you would never think to do that, why?  It is because this is bread and wine consecrated to be eaten and drank.  Just as Jesus taught, in Matthew 7:6, “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”

In conclusion, we do not believe, teach, and confess receptionism, nor the perversion of consecrationism that is actually transubstantiation that some would attribute to us, but rather what we believe, teach, and confess is that it is Christ who works through the pastor that makes the bread and wine also the body and blood of Christ.   This is not about adiaphora.  This is no Roman Catholic teaching but it is the teaching of the Church catholic.  In so doing it is crucial that the Words of Institution be spoken each time because it is for the comfort and strengthening of the faith of the believer.  Likewise this sacrament that has been consecrated and set aside for holy use by holy people, is to be consumed and not left to create confusion as to when it is done being the sacrament, rather the consecrated body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine will each time be used for the right use: eating and drinking for forgiveness of sins.