I am trying to understand the Lutheran doctrine of Communion. Lutherans believe that Christ "gives us his true body and blood in, with, and under the consecrated bread and wine" (*Small Catechism with explanation* Concordia Publishing House, 352). They believe that Christ's real presence is there whether the communicant believes it or not (353), because the presence of Christ is established by the words of Jesus that are read during the ceremony. While my Small Catechism doesn't say this, I am also of the understanding that the real presence is also not dependent on the faith of the pastor leading the ceremony. In this way, a communicant does not need to worry about whether the pastor or the congregation is faithful; Christ's word is sufficient for him to be sure that he is in fact receiving Christ's body and blood for his forgiveness. However, Lutherans apparently believe that, at churches (such as Baptists) who do not affirm the real presence, Christ is *not* present in the communion elements, even if the words of institution are read. This appears to also be the case even if the communicant believes that Christ is present in the elements at such a church. I don't understand how those ideas can be reconciled. **If it is Christ's words, not the faith of the recipient nor the faith of the minister, that effectuates the real presence of Christ in Communion, how is it that that word is ineffective if the sacrament is administered in a church of the wrong denomination?** Perhaps one might say that if most or almost all of the congregation doesn't believe in real presence, then Christ's body will not be really present. But then we lose that assurance solely in Christ's Word that he is really present and we must also trust the congregation that we are with. Is there something that I am missing here? How do Lutherans reconcile these beliefs? *Note:* I am not asking whether or not Lutherans are correct on this issue. I am asking asking whether the Lutheran beliefs about Communion are internally consistent. If I have misunderstood any part of the Lutheran doctrines here, please let me know what I got wrong.

They all have some quotes which seem to support it and others which seem to deny it. Here are just a few. > Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He **made** it His own body, by saying, “This is my body,” that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. This seems like it could be interpreted a number of ways...but if it was solely just a metaphor, why would Jesus "make it" his body? If it's not actually his body, what is he "making it"? > Now, because they thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, **supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh**, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, “It is the spirit that quickens;” and then added, “The flesh profits nothing,”— meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit The way this is phrased makes it seem like it's not literally Christ's flesh. Iraneus says something similar: > For when the Greeks, having arrested the slaves of Christian catechumens, then used force against them, in order to learn from them some secret thing [practised] among Christians, these slaves, having nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ, and **imagining that it was actually flesh and blood**, gave their inquisitors answer to that effect. Lost Fragments XIII

The Catholic Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all have the same understanding of this doctrine. What is the Catholic understanding?

Many denominations affirm the doctrine of the [real presence of Christ in communion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist) , that in the communion Christ is in some sense really present in a way that is distinct from his general presence in the world and the church. In contrast, [memorialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memorialism) is the position that communion is a purely symbolic act of remembrance, such that Christ is not present any more than usual. Different denominations have different versions of the doctrine of real presence. The Westminster Confession explains the Reformed Protestant version of real presence as follows: > WCF 29.7: Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed,  yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death:  the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine;  yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance,   as the elements themselves are to their outward senses. This seems to me to be quite a measured statement: far from the doctrines of trans/con-substantiation, and emphasising that the benefits of Christ's death are only received by faith. So do memorialists actually oppose this version of real presence, as explained in the Westminster Confession? If so, what exegetical or theological arguments lead them to reject it?

I'd imagine that if Christ directly taught the doctrine of the Real Presence, then one of the Gospels would have recorded it. So given that fact that it isn't directly taught, **let us assume for the sake of argument that Christ did not explicitly teach this doctrine.** If this is the case, **why did the early Christians seem to universally assume this doctrine to be true?** Most notable example of this is St. Justin Martyr's First Apology. (I also say it seems to be "universally" assumed because nobody argued against the idea. This implies people thought of it as a typical Christian teaching.) The typical proofs I hear from Catholic apologists are: - a certain reading of John 6 - an insistence that the Words of Institution should be taken literally - a long proof of the mass as a *propitiatory* sacrifice (not merely a sacrifice of praise) thus implying the victim of this sacrifice must be Christ But I cannot find any of these arguments in the early Christian writings. Further, it seems implausible that early Christians would even mount some of these arguments. i.e. it seems unlikely that St. Justin Martyr argued for the Eucharist as a *propitiatory* sacrifice considering that he hardly quotes the NT (he vaguely references the Gospels and Revelation). He displays little to no knowledge of the Apostolic letters. If you know of any early Christians making one of these three arguments, let me know. Now, the fourth argument Catholic apologists make is from the testimony of the early Christians! So this leads me to my question. **On what basis did the early Christians get this idea of the Real Presence in the first place? More specifically, if Christ didn't teach the doctrine of the Real Presence explicitly, where did the apostles/early Christians supposedly get the idea?** Update: Some on another forum have simply asserted that the Apostles themselves verbally taught the early Christians the doctrine of the Real Presence. However, this just pushes the question one step further. Where did the Apostles get the idea from if Jesus did not explicitly teach it? Did the Apostles simply take the Words of Consecration literally at the Last Supper? Any theory is welcome (though citing a scholar who proposes a theory is best). This is indeed a very speculative question. Update 2: Some users are trying to close this question on the basis that I “falsely” assume that Christians from the 2nd century onward generally believed in the Real Presence. I would hope people’s personal theological beliefs are not driving this movement, as it is indeed historically factual that Christians from the 2nd century onward believed Christ was truly present in the Eucharist. This is a theoretical question about the development of the belief in the Real Presence, not an apology for Catholicism or Protestantism. Please base your answers in history, not personal theological opinions.

Do most Roman Catholics still believe that Christ's physical body is present in the Eucharist, or do most Roman Catholics believe that it is Christ's spiritual presence in the Eucharist? It is difficult to believe that, if one took the bread during communion and physically analyzed it, that physically it would be anything other than bread. It seems that spiritual presence would be sufficient for a sacrament.

I was studying various views on the Eucharist, and I found the view of Consubstantiation very interesting. I would like to know what arguments are used to defend this position. -------------------------------------- **Consubstantiation** >Consubstantiation is a Christian theological doctrine that (like transubstantiation) describes the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It holds that during the sacrament, the substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. It was part of the doctrines of Lollardy, {1} and considered a heresy by the Roman Catholic Church. It was later championed by Edward Pusey of the Oxford Movement, and is therefore held by many high church Anglicans. The Irvingian Churches (such as the New Apostolic Church) adhere to consubstantiation as the explanation of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Wikipedia - Consubstantiation

Consider the following quote of St. Peter Julian Eymard: > An age prospers or dwindles in proportion to its devotion to the Holy Eucharist. This is the measure of its spiritual life and its faith, of its charity and its virtue. QUESTION: Are there other Catholic Saints who have expressed similar thoughts regarding the connection between the rise and fall of a people and the devotion (or respect) they pay to the Holy Eucharist? If so, who are they and what did they say regarding the aforesaid connection? All Saints, I am quite sure, have had a devotion to the Holy Eucharist; I am interested only in those who have verbalized a connection similar to the one given above by St. Peter Julian Eymard.

The Catholic, Orthodox, and some Protestant denominations hold to an idea of the 'real presence' when it comes to the Eucharist. Catholics understand this in terms of 'transubstantiation', Orthodox prefer to describe what is happening more as simply a mystery, and Protestant denominations have varying views. Yet, significant Protestant denominations do not hold to the idea of the 'real presence', and instead understand the Eucharist ('the Lord's Supper') as being an ordinance that is memorial (remembering what Jesus did, also known as 'memorialism'). For example , > The American Baptist Churches USA, a mainline Baptist denomination, > believes that "The bread and cup that symbolize the broken body and > shed blood offered by Christ remind us today of God's great love for > us" Who was the earliest theologian to articulate and argue for this kind of memorial ordinance view of the Eucharist?

The Orthodox Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all have the same understanding of this doctrine. What is the Orthodox understanding?

As part of a refutation of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the author claims (with his own emphasis): >It is not *possible* since Jesus would be holding himself in his own hand (when He said, “this is my body”). [source](https://normangeisler.com/does-the-nt-support-the-rc-view-of-communion/) The only support offered for the claim seems to be a reference to St. Augustine: >First, since in the original context, when Jesus said “this is by body,” everyone present knew it was not literally his real body but a piece of bread being held by His real body (hand). So, if it is not understood symbolically, then St. Augustine’s statement is a bold contradiction when he declared; “Christ bore Himself in His hands, when he offered His body saying: ‘this is my body’” (Ott, Fundamentals, 377). Do most who refute the Real Presence agree that it is impossible for Jesus to institute such a thing in such a way? If so, where can one find a more thorough examination of that impossibility?

John 6:59-60 is > "Jesus said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. 60 On > hearing it, many of His disciples said, “This is a difficult teaching. > Who can accept it?”" The teaching that is difficult (alternately translated as 'hard') refers to what Jesus is saying prior, potentially including everything from John 6:26. According to Catholicism, 'this teaching' is difficult because Jesus is here referring to what becomes known as the doctrine of the 'real presence' - Jesus is substantially present in the bread and wine of Communion. According to Protestants who do not accept something like the Catholic view, why is Jesus' teaching so difficult for the disciples to accept?

The Lutheran Church is one of several denominations that teach the Real Presence, but they don't all understand it the same way. The Lutheran understanding differs significantly from the Orthodox and Catholic positions; could someone explain the Lutheran understanding of this doctrine?