Ernie Lassman | – Are the bread and wine really Jesus' body and blood?
Pastor Lassman’s Lesson 11 – The Lord’s Supper
Videos from the Adult Information Class on basic christian teachings at Messiah Lutheran Church in Seattle, Washington.
About The Author
Pastor Lassman Pastor Lassman. A class on basic Christian teachings at Messiah Lutheran Church in Seattle, Washington.
chichi2joe – This man is talking about the real presence of Jesus in bread and wine which you radical reformed Protestants deny.
No wonder he sound confused as the teaching itself. Jesus in bread and wine? Hebrews 10:12 "But this man (Jesus) after He had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, SAT DOWN ON THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD."
How on earth man get power to command Jesus to come from His throne and be placed in a wafer? TRASH.
chichi2joe – When Jesus gives men the authority to call him and be present in the Eucharist, then men can call Jesus so that he is present in the Eucharist.
That is how Christians have always believed including many Protestants, until reformers like Ulrich Zwingli came and brainwashed some reformed protestants to think otherwise.
chichi2joe – the pastor said 'HI..well it started during the Reformation among the more radical reformers including such people as Ulrich Zwingli…basically they deny the real presence because of human reason..in other words, since they could not understand HOW that could be…they deniced it and make the bread and wine into symbols of the body and blood…Pastor Lassman '
Your personal fallible interpretation of the scripture is the REAL TRASH.
@nschaub – Pastor Lassman, do Lutherans believe that Jesus is present with his body in the bread and wine?
Or Jesus is only present spiritually?
I was reading the Lutheran term consubstantiation and would like to get clarifications from you.
Hi..Yes..Lutherans believe in The Real Presence "in, with, and under the Bread and Wine" We ARE closer to Rome on this point than Protestants..We don't believe the Protestant "symbolism/representation"..
However, Lutherans don't believe in "consubstantiation".. Lutherans NEVER use the term..it is a term used by others (usually Protestants) to describe what THEY think Lutherans believe…We dont try to EXPLAIN this presence..we just believe it..that's why we reject "transubstantiation" too.
Yes we do, and the eucharist is a true sacrifice. I would not say that lutherans has to reject the transubstantiation, but it is not our tradition to explain the real presence. The issue of Transubtantiation is not church dividing from the catholic point of view and should not be that from the lutheran point of view either. (Read Bishofsberger's book on this subject). Do you agree with me Pastor Lassman?
@karpov89 – Thanks for the answer. I think important thing is to believe in the real presence.
Trying to explain it is not that important. Orthodox churches also do not try to explain it.
Yes; and therefore the priest also in the lutheran eucharistic prayer in the mass states: [This is] the mystery of faith. An we reply: We proclaim your death and confess your resurrection until you will come back in glory (I now translated from Swedish to English).
nschaub – So, as I understand, Lutherans believe that Jesus is present with his body and blood in with and under the bread and wine. So, the bread and wine remains and Jesus becomes present physically in them.
However, Lutherans do not believe that bread and wine become body and blood of Jesus.
Is my understanding correct?
HI..actually you want me, Pastor Lassman. Nschaub produced the video..and it appears that you understand correctly……..
nschaub – Ok now I understand why the term co substantiation is used to explain the Lutheran understanding.
I also understand that Lutherans to not accept the term co substantiation as they do not wish to explain the real presence of Jesus.
Thanks for the clarification.
you got it…you are welcome…
Hi Pastor Lassman! What do you think of use of bells during at consecration in the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Lutheran mass? How is the holy communion administered in your church; do you agree communion on the tongue, kneeling is to be preferred?
@karpov89 ,,,,,,,,,HI…we don't use bells at consecration (and the Lutheran Confessions make no mention of a bell a consecration) as there does not seem to be a consensus on when, the precise moment, that the bread and wine are also the Body and Blood of Jesus…………………decades ago we always communed on the tongue…..now it's more common by the hand…but some still use by the tongue………..and kneeling is preferred…………..
@karpov89 The Lutheran confessions reject transubstantiation…it is not an option for a confessional Lutheran to accept or believe in transubstantiation…according to the Luthean Confessions…and the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice…this too is rejected by the Lutheran Confessions……it is a sacrament…not a sacrifice…………….
@nschaub What I want to stress is that it is not the Lutheran tradition to make the interpretation of the Sacrament of the Altar as transubstantiantion. According to the Catholic Church is the Lutheran explanation of the real presence church dividing; why should then the Lutheran church today condemn the transubstantiation?!
@nschaub About the sacrifice; you must have forgotten the Church Ordinance of 1571 when Laurentius Petri was Arch Bishop of Sweden (ordinated by the Catholic bishop Petri Magni) according to which the eucharist is a sacrifice, although not a new one but the same which we receive in the wine and bread.
@nschaub Thanks for the information. I agree that the Confessions do not say it is right or wrong with bells at the consecration. Good that kneeling is preferred. The most important thing is that if Intinction is used; the priest should be the one dipping the consecrated bread and not the communicant.
@karpov89 HIi..well whatever Bishop Petri said is not binding on me….and it contradicts the Confessions which is binding on me……….so I have to pick the confessions over Bishop Petri………..Could you explain to me more fully how the Sacrament is a sacrifice?
@karpov89 Because transubstantian is false doctrine
@nschaub Well I and my church is more cautious and call it a different tradition. I mean; it is not like the baptists who claim that if you are baptised as a child you are not baptised at all.. we do both believe in the real precense.
@nschaub According to article XXIV of the Apology there are two kinds of sacrifices. In the offertory we bring the bread and wine, collect (the money) and ourselfs as a sacrifice of thanksgiving. Without this sacrifice – at least the bread and wine – we can't receive the one, perfect, single, sacrifice of reconciliation – Jesus Christ!
Beloved Mother of the Eucharist and Grace, chosen by God to carry in Her womb His beloved Son, the host which at consecration becomes the Body and Blood of Your Son, Jesus, is just as much Your flesh and blood. We offer all our trials in reparation for the sins committed against the Holy Eucharist. Please save us from the calamities besetting our country. We beg You to intercede for us with our Lord Jesus, that we may have peace of mind and heart, peace in our family and peace in our country.
@nschaub Maybe…or just using different words to explain it..like the question about Filioque and the Monofysite churches, Nature of Christ.
@nschaub Well what the church says is important though and he was the Archbishop during the Reformation. But not binding, yes. In the mass (also the Lutheran mass), the last part of the Liturgy of the Word consists of the Offertory. Then we bring the gifts (the money collected) to the Altar and we prepare the gifts of the land we manage – bread and wine. That is what we sacrifice together with our prayers. To be continued..
@nschaub In return in the Liturgy of the Eucharist Jesus Christ is giving himself as a living sacrifice in the consecrated wine and bread.The one and only, perfect sacrifice which take away all the sins.
@nschaub False??? so your majesty decided that it was false?? IGNORANCE and ARROGANCE goes well together dont they?
This isn't criticism of the real presence, but I'm just wondering – why would we be consuming his body and blood? What's the purpose of that?
And were the disciples receiving his body and blood too, at the Last Supper, before he was crucified?
@Reazzurro90 Hi..you ask a good question and the answer is simple 1) Because Jesus clearly says it and 2) bread and wine can't give the forgiveness of sins…only His body and blood can do that….so he says to "eat his body and drink his blood for the forgiveness of sins…..and yes..the disciples were receving his body and blood too at the last supper before he was crucified…because that's what he told them….thanks for the quetions and comments..
That makes sense. But does the Lutheran church offer an explanation as to why we consume his body and blood?
@Reazzurro90 HI……well, the only explanation that we can give is the one that Jesus himself gives …we do it to receive the forgivness of our sins, because the body that we eat and the blood which we drink is the same body and blood that he gave on the cross to earn that forgiveness by paying for our sins anc cancelling our debt of sin to God.
@Reazzurro90 Ask yourself what makes a family a family. Family will share the same flesh & blood. Christ gave us a new covenant to make us part of His people. We as a Christian Catholic body all share in the same flesh & blood as it truely becomes only His flesh & blood. We know this by His words. We can all be one just as He commanded when we come in communion to share in His Supper. Food always nourishes the body but the special meal shared in His Communion nourishes in the most spiritual way.
Is this not the same as #11? Refer to my comments on "is".
@catchzz Family often does not share the same flesh and blood. One example would be adoption. Another would be step-children. Family groups are defined more broadly than by same flesh and blood.
@JeffersonDinedAlone I realize that, but we are talking about a spiritual family in Christ. By consuming His flesh & blood, we as one body are united together by the same flesh & blood.
what did luther mean when he said "under the bread and wine"
He meant that the bread was not "transformed/changed into" the body so that the bread WAS NO MORE. Lutherans believe, in contrast to Protestants, in the "Real Presence" of the Body and Blood of Jesus……but "in, with, and under" the bread…..which simply means we don't undertsand this and have no need/interest to explain with "transubstantiation" which ends up denying the presence of the bread……..we receive 4 things WITH OUR MOUTH: bread/body and wine/blood…
I m nobody to judge but this man will have to pay in the after life about all his non sense teachings
Jesus said: Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life within you. Is that clear enough? Whether it's spiritual life or bodily life or both is irrelevant.
It is the body and blood of our Lord, it is a miracle from God, we don't have to understand, the bible makes it pretty darn clear, its an act of faith, not only do Roman Catholics believe and by the way Catholic means universal or Christian, Lutherans , Orthodox, and I think Episcopal all believe it is the body and blood of Jesus at the moment of reception to the mouth
DO NOT LET THE CHURCH FOOLS YOU !!! This ancient ritual of eating bread as the Flesh of Jesus and Drinking Wine as his Blood has nothing to do with christianity at all. It is a Zoroastrian Ritual of the 28th C.B.C. practiced by the sect of Zoroaster and was was adopted by the Catholic Church in the 4th C. A.D. by Saint Paul (who was a merchant between Syria and Persia) but the Byzantium Eastern Church which sentence Paul to death and accused him of veering and falsifying Christian in 332 A.D. but he escaped death and fled to Rome. The Yazidis Sect has the same ritual in their religious practices. What this man believe is a junk. Read history and learn. See origin of the ritual in the above comment.
Origin of the Blood and Wine ecclesiastical pagan ritual: When High King Nimrod (Zage essi son of Ilosh) sieged and destroyed the Sumerian Capital City of Lagash with his 72 vassal kings and captured his half brother Emperor Urukagina who was god ANU of Heaven, he crucified him on the cross upside down (a satanic ritual) and slit his throat. They gathered his blood in a container and they shared drinking the blood of god of Heaven. Then, they extracted his heart and shared eating it raw. Erishkigal, wife of his elder son god Enlil, cut a chunk of his shoulder, grilled it and ate it. Since the day of killing god Anu, Nimrod and his vassal kings in the nine regions of the Sumerian World Empire began to celebrate the ritual of this awful murder by drinking red wine as a symbol of god's Anu blood and take the wafer as his flesh. Nimrod usurped the throne of the Sumerian World Empire and that why the Bible mentioned that Nimrod ruled over the whole world. Nimrod was known in Egypt as Seth, god of chaos, deserts, magic and evil who killed his brother Osiris or Urukagina. This is the real origin of Wine and Bread story.
You cannibals, all of you who practice this shit
Jesus Christ said "It is finished" we don"t have to sacrificed him every mass.
You are teaching heresy. He was teaching them something spiritual. So please explain how we eat a piece of bread that is made with the hands of sinful men and claim that we eat of Jesus ?
Are we still save if we do not belive The Real Presence but only symbolism ? Because when Jesus said eat My body dan drink My blood Jesus use bread and wine not used actual His Body and actual His Blood. Eat His body dan drink His blood of Jesus is symbol of Jesus crucify, where His body suffer and bleeding.
Lie Lie Lie. The teaching of the Whore of Babylon. Come out of her my people…Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
it's all symbolism…it's not a prerequisite to be saved..