Reformed sacramentology is lower than Lutheran or Catholic, but it is not symbolic. Reformed christians believe that we really do eat the Body and Blood of Christ in communion. Perhaps your church is particular baptist?

@@tonic-music it's not baptist just non-denominational. Looks more to Puritans like Edward, Bunyan, and Owen so more like Congregationalist without the infant baptism and high view of the eucharist

@@bradleymarshall5489strictly speaking, a nondenominational church isn’t 100% “Reformed”. Reformed more or less equates to Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed, although Reformed Baptists are very close as well. Reformed churches do not believe the Eucharist is symbolic, we believe we receive effectual means of grace spiritually through ordinary elements, and only those who are elect can receive that grace (which is why we don’t think the elements change and the presence of Christ is spiritual, as it wouldn’t make sense for a nonbeliever to take communion and receive grace from it)

@@bradleymarshall5489 Not really reformed then.

@@tonic-music maybe not full classically reformed but they still emphasize total depravity and God’s sovereignty. The Church is in downtown Seattle and is doing good at attracting a lot of different people. Might be coming at the price of being more strictly Orthodox but it’s brining people to Christ all the same

Praise to lord welcome home from( Etiopian Evangelical church Mekeneyesus. a luthrean denomination)holy sprits always leads you to the truth

I was a Baptist until earlier this year and joined the LCMS as well, the main thing for me was baptism

@Emie-f3garen’t you then worshiping the accidents of Jesus? If we were to apply your Aristotelian metaphysical view. Again, Christ tells us what the sacrament is for, and that’s eating for the forgiveness of sins. Using it for any other purpose could be considered sacrilege. At the very least, you shouldn’t cast judgment on those who don’t find it appropriate to use the sacrament in that way.

@Emie-f3g ​​⁠please notice: I’m not disputing that it is the body and blood of Christ. But Christ instructed to “take, EAT….do THIS…” When you take the supper He gave and do not eat it (as with Eucharistic adoration) you are actually disobeying Christ who told you to EAT it. Catholic moral theology recognizes that the misuse of a good thing is disordered and wrong. To NOT eat the Eucharist and instead put it on display is a misuse of that good thing that comes from God and is disordered. IF it is Christ’s body and blood indeed, then you had better EAT it like he commanded. Else you’re disobeying Him and misusing His gift.

@Emie-f3g if putting the consecrated sacrament in a monstrance on display in a chapel with no priest to distribute it doesn’t qualify as violating the telos of a thing that’s meant to be eaten, then nothing possibly can. The example of sexual union is apt here. If it is disordered to engage in the sexual act while using a condom (denying the reproductive telos of the sexual act), then putting the sacrament in a monstrance on display and NOT eating is is also disordered. You say that Eucharistic adoration isn’t disordered because it COULD still be eaten. But in order to eat it, you would have to REMOVE it from the monstrance and have a priest to administer it. Likewise someone could argue that the use of a condom in the sexual act is not disordered because it COULD still be made to fulfill the telos of the act. But you can surely recognize that such an argument isn’t sound because one would first have to REMOVE the birth control that is present in order to possibly fulfill the telos of the act.

@Emie-f3g which is weird because the Catholic church is super strict about absolute divine simplicity. And yet you worship parts of Jesus? The bread, his heart, his toes? Make this make sense.

​​@Emie-f3g accidents are not nothing. It is possible to worship accidents. When we worship the Eucharist, the reason we are not worshipping the accidents of bread and wine is because we are worshipping the Sacramental presence of Christ - not because it is impossible to worship the accidents of bread and wine. It would be possible to worship those accidents if that is what someone intended to do.

The terminology of "transsubstantiation" was not created to answer protestants. All Christians are faced with the embarrassment of having to justify how the Lord could say "this *is* my body" over something which is bread according to all senses. So the explanation is aimed at people who either say that Christ lied or that he meant something purely symbolic. Both Lutherans and Catholics have come up with clear terminology about their belief in order to make outsiders understand. How is the Catholic answer "puffing up" and the Lutheran answer is "love"? Imagine yourself at the time of the reformation. The faithful have been taught for centuries that that bread used in the Eucharist becomes the Body of our Lord. But it's a time of turmoil and the doubts that have always been there bubble up and are articulated. Calvin and Zwingli say that it was meant just symbolically and bread is just bread. The Catholics double down on the Real Presence, confirming the ancient belief that left-over bread of the Eucharist is still holy. Now Luther formulates his view and says: Let's leave this to Divine mystery, because definitions foster argument, pride and schism. And everybody embraced each other and just lived their own truth, however they read it in the bible. And yet, in 2024 a Lutheran makes a KZfaq video, complaining that the Catholic view is idolatrous (which would be a sin) and many commentators say that low sacramentology is a big issue. Are we now going to have arguments, pride and schism?

It’s the same word. Sacrament comes from the Latin word for mystery.

@@harrygarris6921 same word, different meaning and so a different impression in it's use. Sacrament is in English "Holy 'thing'", Mystery is 'mystery'

@Emie-f3g sorry I don't understand you're question. But to OP's question, Lutherans would understand the Church to be the true Body of Christ and His Body and Blood at the Sacrament of the Altar mysteriously consuming the participants and so incorporating them again/more into said Body/Church.

The Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox view of the Eucharist are close to identical. We, too, leave it a mystery as to how Christ's body and blood coexist with the bread and wine.

Lutheran's believe Christ's body and blood is only present in union at the celebration of mass for the purpose of consecration, distribution, and reception. I can not speak for all Lutheran's, however, typically the Priest or Elder will drink the rest of the blood and make sure none remains. The rest of the hosts unused are put into a gold pan, covered, and stored in another room adjacent to the alter, to be used next mass. We still show reverence to the elements of the sacrament, hence they are seperated and stored.

From my LCMS pastor: Historical practice reserves them in a 'tabernacle" for communion of the sick, homebound or dying, or kept with respect in a separate place for future use along with wine/blood

@@charliep5139 so is that historical practiced still observed?

@@MrPeach1 in my church there is a separate room closed off beside the alter. The wine/blood is drank as to not leave any. The remaining hosts are covered in a gold dish and veil, and placed into the room beside the alter for future services or for pastoral visitations to the hospital, prisons, and so on. Basically the blood/wine is drank, and the bread/body is stored in a tabernacle. Also note that we respect the elements but we do not believe that Christ is present after the celebration of mass, only present during.

Lutherans get defensive about this because no other denomination understands the neich position you guys take.

@@drewpanyko5424 our institutional Catholic Church isn't really in the business of "understanding" the other sides, per se, it's more about extending verbal constructs that could serve as bridging olive branches (eg, "consubstantion") for the sake of institutional reunion

​​@@finp_c2857I'd generally agree. I would assert that the Lutheran position is only "niche" because it adheres most closely to the biblical witness and eschews the philosophical vocabulary of other churches. Nonetheless, Lutherans have to be more clear about their teaching on the Eucharist when engaging in theological discourse with those in other Christian church bodies.

@drewpanyko5424 That's fair, but I don't think Lutherans use less complex theological or philosophical terms when talking about the Body of Christ they seem to use more.

​@@finp_c2857Part of the reason for that is that our sacramentology is deeply connected to our (Cyrillian) Christology. We use Western theo-philosophical categories, but apply them to what is for the most part a Coptic stance on questions of the two natures and the real presence. That's an unusual blend and so it can seem odd and overly complicated.

@Emie-f3g it is.

Yeah, the main concern for us is divorcing the Sacrament from Christ's institution. Christ instituted the Holy Supper to be eaten and drunk, not to just sit in a monstrance, so to consecrate the Eucharist and not eat and drink is no sacrament at all because it's not according to Christ's institution. Now, that's not to say we shouldn't adore Christ in the Eucharist. We should and do. During the Liturgy of the Sacrament portion of the Mass/Divine Service, after consecration, it's common for the celebrant to genuflect, elevate the host and chalice for the congregation to behold, and the majority of Lutheran churches kneel at the altar to receive the Eucharist. Just like in the EO church, some Lutheran churches may have a tabernacle or a special recepticle to reserve the Eucharist that will be brought to the sick, but in neither EO or Lutheran churches are tabernacles used for Eucharistic adoration. The exposition of the Eucharist is a uniquely Roman development that started around the 14th-15th century.

And to excommunicate/exile, and also separate Lutheran parents from their children (the only reason 'a mighty fortress' is well known today).

@@j.g.4942 “If a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and his executioner. . . Therefore, let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog.” - Luther

The Hapsburgs and Bourbons helped, friend. By the end of the war it was a Catholic-Protestant alliance on both sides. Not denying that it started along sectarian lines.

@@SeanusAurelius I am aware. The greatest betrayal came from Richleau who payed the king of Sweden to intervene on behalf of the protestants.

Wait. Did Luther mean to Literally stab & kill? As in, dead corpse on the ground? ​@Catholic-Perennialist

And Lutherans should/do worship the host, before and as they eat it.

We don't divide the person of Christ, so yes we drink the blood of God the Son.

"Probably" to the former, but our skepticism regarding scholastics means most of us would probably shy from the explicit way you worded it. "Without a doubt" to the latter, we consider that a primary reason for its effect. (And also a huge reason Paul warned against abuses, the reference point I use is Moses looking upon Gods body on the mountain and being so changed the Israelites couldnt look at him.)

The Bible doesn't tell us it becomes the soul and divinity of Christ so no we don't believe in that, we just believe in what the Bible tells us.

Firstly, Lutherans do not believe that the elements become Christ's body and blood -- they remain bread and wine -- but rather that they become united with Christ's body and blood. (Sacramental union rather than transubstantiation)

FWIW, the best metaphor I can think of for the Catholic devotion would be something like this: In the meditative practice, we attempt to unite to Christ by "mentally stripping away" the accidents of the fallen world and meeting at the mysterious realm of "substance". Physical eating is an "earthy" thing, but symbolically, it is indeed a picture of union (ie "you are what you eat")

Well the essence of transubstantiation still remains, even if the accidence of it changes lol. In seriousness, what I mean by that is that regardless of the abuses practiced because of a belief, the essential truth is what remains important.

@@theproceedings4050 my impression of Luther is that what he saw going on with Catholicism was that in practice it had become a massive "transactional" system ("do this, get that"), where basically Jesus was nowhere to be found in these transactions. So it's as if he thought, "Well, if transactional-mindedness is just an inherent part of the human condition, I could at least simplify this to one big Jesus centered transaction of "Sola Fide", and trim away some sacramental clutter so that what remains could be directly used to serve this overarching principle"...if there's any truth to my impression, then it's certainly an example of German efficiency at its finest 😂

​@WayneDrake-uk1gg Fair enough. It is undeniable that Reformational forensic justification could not come about as strongly without the context/foundation of indulgences and the penitential system which was designed around remitting guilt -- whether that's a legitimate aspect of biblical and patristic theology is somewhat a secondary debate (although, I tend to think it is -- albeit not to the exclusion of medicinal/ontological models of justification).

@@WayneDrake-uk1gg That might be partly the case lol. Though in my opinion Luther only ever decided permanently on something if he was reasonably sure he could find it in Scripture, everything else he was hopelessly waffly on, to the point that others have plenty to criticize him over. Personally, I count him among the church fathers as notable and beneficial (although not perfect) theologians. If you read a good biography of him, it's easy to come to the conclusion that while flawed, the entire concern of his life was practicing the entire truth of the Gospel, and using it to renew the church and the world. One could easily see a world in which the abuses of the Catholics had not been so egregious and Luther had not been so lacking of tact (a positive and negative attribute in his case), that there were a whole monastic order founded on his justificatory occupations and belief faith. Coincidentally, this timeline too would have Lutherans lol (right alongside Franciscans).

@@theproceedings4050 on the topic of Lutheran historical counterfactuals, I'd say Luther's way of speaking would be ideally suited for today's environment of social media, where if someone says something you don't like, worst case scenario, you can just block them from your echo chamber (as opposed to Luther's day when echo chambers were national borders and the "Block" button involved a pile of wood and a spark). There's something very attractive about Luther's rhetoric. Whenever someone says, "Last night the devil came to my chamber wishing to debate with me...", what can I say? They've certainly got my attention 😂. And in today's environment it's much easier to seriously reflect on what he's saying without the looming threat of death by Inquisition simply for having his book in our hands

Nope not really

@@taylorbarrett384 Yeah I really think it does. Dr. Cooper is talking about the differences in metaphysical understanding - but why do those matter? I would think it's because the catholic church views participation in the eucharist as facilitating an ontological change internal to the human person towards righteousness and the Lutherans do not.

@@harrygarris6921 The reason why that fails is because Lutherans believe that justification/salvation involves a real internal metaphysical change towards righteousness. They simply don't think that the internal change is sufficient to form the ground of our relationship with God. The difference between the two traditions is not whether a real metaphysical/ontological change occurs. Both traditions affirm that God regenerates the soul and infuses divine charity into the hearts of the believer. The difference is that Lutheran hamartiology differs with the Catholic view in regards their legal assessment of the remaining unwilled inclinations of concupiscence.

@@taylorbarrett384 I know that Martin Luther made a distinction between justification and sanctification and taught that the former led to the latter. What I'm confused about is why modern Lutherans are so eager to claim the more historic catholic and orthodox position that justification and sanctification are both a part of the process of salvation and inseparable, because that did not seem to be the original understanding at the time of the reformation.

@@taylorbarrett384 And no imputed righteousness is not the same thing as ontological deification.

First of all, Catholics are routinely offered the body and blood of Christ. There were historical periods and there are regions where the blood is withheld on most occasions for practical reasons. Theologically, the Eucharist contains Christs full body blood and divinity in _both_ species. This means by taking the blood, I am taking the body, and by taking the body I am taking the blood. This is proven in Sacred Tradition _and_ Scripture when St. Paul says “whosoever drinks this eats this bread _or_ drinks this cup unworthily, he will be held to account for the Lords body _and_ blood” as you can see, taking one or the other holds you in contempt for the _whole_ because the body and blood and divinity of the Lord are inseparable. So, what do we have? 1. Catholics can and do take both the body and the blood, especially on Corpus Christi. 2. The correct understanding of the Eucharist shows that the body and blood are both present under either species.

@@batglide5484 “Drink from it, all of you”

RC church doesn't believe it's bread anymore. That's a denial of Scripture.

​@@ro6ti I just quoted Jesus saying that it's not bread anymore, so the church believes what Jesus said. What do you not understand about the sentence: "This is my body"? And even if He meant something really nuanced with it, how can you agree with Cooper, that the problem of the church is overexplanation, when it apparently is interpreting it too directly. How can the literal interpretation *contradict* scripture? I suggest you rearticulate your beef with it. If Christ had pointed at the sun and said: "This is my body" (let's assume this would make sense with the rest of scripture and would be prefigured in the old testament). Would you then worship the sun as Christ's physical presence, or would you do a nuanced interpretation that when you sunbath with the correct mindset, then you participate in the Body, but otherwise it's just the regular old sun?

@@fabianagco5902 No, even Jesus said He would not drink of the fruit of the vine again until He comes into His Kingdom. It's a dual reality. Paul said we partake of bread and wine, yet it is also called Body and Blood. Dual reality. The wine is His Blood. The bread is His Body. That's all we know. Consider your own body, which is a member of Christ's own Body. It is still your body, but it is now also a member of Christ's body. Dual reality.

@@ro6ti Not sure I understand your point, but I can agree to what you say. Jesus said that he would not drink wine again, because in the seder meal there was still the fourth cup missing, which he did not drink in the upper room. Then on the way to Calvary, he's offered wine with an anaesthetic, which he refuses. Only when He is hanging on the cross does he drink wine, because then it is fulfilled and He is coming into His kingdom. What do you mean with "dual reality" here? He instituted a new sacrament, declaring that the wine of the eucharist becomes His body. As for the church also being His body, that is also true, that's why it's so bad to split off the church. But my body is "being conformed" to Christ by act of participation and even ingestion of something that Christ declared to be His body. So my body is not in the same sense His body as the bread of the eucharist is. He did not look at His apostles in the upper room and said: You are my body.

​@@fabianagco5902 The church is His bride and the two are one. She is His Body, so yes, the Church is the Body of Christ. This is what Paul was saying when he said the two become one flesh and this refers to Christ and the Church. (Eph 5:32) So, the Church being His Body should not be downplayed. "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?" The bread remains bread, since Paul and Jesus said that's what we eat. But, it is also His Body, because that's what He said. So, if it's both, then it's a dual reality. There's no need to explain it or say it's one or the other. It's both realities. Another example of a dual reality is, Christ is both God and Man. We don't pick between the two or try to explain how the Word is Flesh, but we accept the Mystery. Posca or vinegar wine was mostly water and vinegar with herbs. Roman soldiers didn't drink straight vinegar. It maybe had a bit of flavor from the grapes in the vinegar and other grape-derived compounds, but it wasn't the same as drinking the juice of the fruit as in wine. It is transformed beyond "fruit of the vine" when it becomes vinegar and then mixed with mostly water/herbs. So, I wouldn't hang my hat on saying Jesus drank "the fruit of the vine" on the Cross, especially since He said the next time He would drink it new with His disciples when His Kingdom comes. that is, after the Last Day resurrection. The disciples in Acts were still waiting for the Kingdom of God and asked Jesus about it before He ascended. If the Kingdom had already arrived at the Cross, Jesus would've said so when they asked.

If the Church is the Body of Christ, do you worship the Church?

@@ro6ti No, because the Church as the Body of Christ is a metaphor describing the sanctifying relationship between Christ and His members (Eph 5) and the relationship of the members to one another in Christ (1 Cor 12). This relationship is, as St. Paul says, “A great mystery”, and is more profound than we can imagine, but the members are never said to be God, and worship is due to God alone. We see Jesus make similar relational statements in the Gospels- the Vine and Branches discourse in John 15 comes to mind. However, the institution of the Eucharist is unique because Jesus literally took bread and said of it, “This is my body”. Jesus never equates anything else directly with Himself in this way.

Do what? Do what?

@@gumbyshrimp2606 the taking of Holy Communion :) the bread, remembered as His body, and the wine, remembered as His blood.

@@Bop10899 also that but it is says for the forgiveness of sins too in Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the[b] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. The only thing you have to do is reading the Bible to agree with our theology.

@@Bop10899does he say do this in remembrance of my body? No, he says “take and eat, this IS my body given for you, do this in remembrance of me”. We remember Jesus and His promises when we eat his true body and blood.

@@DefenderOfChrist_ his blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins yes, I wouldn’t say the taking of communion is what does that. Considering the thief on the cross did not need communion, rather the blood of Christ which was poured at the cross. Thank you for remaining civil, are you a Lutheran?

Nicea is descriptive of a doctrine made clear in scripture, transubstantiation is a theory made binding with no precedent in scripture. It’s not that it’s too philosophical, it’s that it’s unnecessary.

​@@bruhmingo Scripture is so "clear" that a whole Book of Concord was necessary? Every heresy is based upon the "perspicuity" of Scripture. If you're a Confessional Lutheran, you believe in quasi-transubstantiation; the only major difference between sacramental union and transubstantiation is that y'all believe the whole substance of bread/wine remains ("with, in, under"). So, basically, with all due respect, it's as if you're turning Jesus into a loaf of bread and wine, while He maintains his body and blood; "the bread and wine [ARE] truly the body and blood of Christ" (VII. The Lord's Supper). I do appreciate the BOC maintaining the Real Presence, however. But saying that transubstantiation is "unnecessary" is analogous to saying the BOC was unnecessary in teaching sacramental union.

​@@fatimatriumphsNot a Lutheran just respect them but I can see the point of leaving mystery a mystery at a certain point. The Eastern Orthodox Church who claims to be the one true church and that Rome believes has apostolic succession also leaves it a mystery no? I can respect the idea of taking Christ at his word without trying to explain it to satisfy an intellectual curiosity for self.

​@fatimatriumphs You have to accept Aristotelian metaphysics to accept transubstantiation.

@@derrickbonsell and so do you to accept the doctrine of the Trinity and the relations of the three divine persons.

really? it's Catholics that are disappearing in the USA. The majority are only cultural Catholics like Joe Biden; Catholics are crying that their schools are closing and need money . Be a good Catholic and support your church

Lol, it's sad but true that whenever these "disputes over words" pop up in the Church, pretty much any attempts to work them out just build more barriers than bridges. In practice, the only way to "heal" these divides is simply to outlive the other side

@@WayneDrake-uk1gg Catholicism, for all its faults, at least doesn't practice self-gεnοcιdε by a refusal to reproduce. Even Cooper hasn't achieved the "replacement rate," so it's doubtful that the lutheran laity fully understand the problem.

I bet the world ends before then. AI is already getting too scary, another 30 or so years and some things we can’t even imagine right now are going to be happening

@@Ben-kh7wh I'll bet the world does not end, and your attitude hastens the demise of Protestantism.