Of the Holy Supper.
What is the sacrament of the Last Supper of Jesus Christ?
It is the true body and the true essential blood of Jesus Christ, under and with the blessed bread and wine for us Christians to eat and drink here on earth, instituted by Christ Jesus himself. As
the holy evangelists Matth. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22 and the holy apostle Paul in the 1st epistle to the Corinthians in the 11th chapter testify.
What are the essential parts of this sacrament?
Two. Firstly, an earthly, visible one, as bread and wine, and secondly a heavenly, invisible one, which is nevertheless truly present here on earth, namely the true body and blood of Jesus Christ.
Are these two parts united?
By the first institution of the Lord Jesus Christ they are united in the use of the holy sacrament, so that I can truly say of the blessed bread in its use and partaking that it is a communion of the body of Christ. Of the blessed cup in the use administered, that it is a communion of the blood of Jesus Christ, as St. Paul says in his epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 10: And this is the result of the sacramental union.
How do you describe such a cleanup?
So that it is a true union of the blessed bread with the body and the blessed wine with the blood of Christ, since by virtue of the first institution of Jesus Christ in the ordinary use and oral partaking of the holy sacrament, with bread and wine, the true body and the true essential blood of Jesus Christ is taken.
Is it not such a union, in that the bread is essentially changed into the body of Christ and the wine is likewise essentially changed into the blood of Jesus Christ?
No. Thus our adversaries teach of their transubstantiation and transformation of the earthly elements into the heavenly substance, as if after the blessing there were no more bread, no more wine, but only body, only blood. Indeed, the bread is no longer bread at all in its essence, but is transformed into the body of Christ.
This teaching is false. We teach from God's Word such a union of the bread with the body, of the wine with the blood, that in use the two parts are
inseparable, and neither the bread without the body, nor the body without the bread, are taken in proper use. But nevertheless, the two substances and essences should not be mixed and the bread should remain truly bread, the wine truly wine in its actual essence, thereby preventing a number of errors.
What kind of errors?
First of all, of the transubstantiation and transformation which the papists thus describe in their Council of Trent and elsewhere, that it is an essential transformation, whereby bread and wine are changed according to their essence into the essence of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, by saying the words: This is my body. Thus the essence of the bread and wine is made void, and apart from the mere taste and outward appearance there is nothing of the bread or wine.
How do you refute this fallacy?
1. From this, because it has no solid ground in all the Scriptures, which some of our adversaries themselves must confess.
2. It is undeniable that this transformation was finally commanded by the Pope in the Concilio Lateranensi, about 300 years ago.
3 St. Paul, in the first epistle to the Corinthians in chapter 10 [:16]:, calls the blessed bread and the blessed cup a communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. If the bread is to be a communion of the body of Christ, then the bread must remain bread, so that it may be the communion of another, namely the body of Jesus Christ. The words of the holy apostle Paul are thus [:16]: The blessed cup which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ, and the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For further explanation, consider this example: the water that is turned into wine at Cana cannot be a communion of wine, but is wine because it is turned into wine. And so, if the bread were changed into the body, it could not be a communion of
the body, but the body itself, and so the body would be a communion of the same body, which is unheard of in all the world.
4. St. Paul also refutes this transformation in that, after the bread has been blessed, he still calls the blessed bread, and that often, as can be seen in the first epistle to the Corinthians in chapters 10 and 11: But if after the blessing the bread were no longer bread, or were essentially changed into the body, then the apostle should not say who eats the bread, but who eats the body, because according to the papist opinion it is not bread that is eaten, but only the body without the bread. Which is so clearly and obviously contrary to the words of Scripture, where it is said: We truly eat a true bread, and with the bread we truly eat the true body of Jesus Christ.
5. Christ says: In the holy supper we eat the body that was given for us at the foot of the cross. But if this papal transformation is valid, then we do not eat the body of Christ, but that which was transformed from the bread and only created through the words of institution.
6. But how can the article on the incarnation of Jesus Christ undergo such a transformation? We believe and confess that Christ Jesus assumed his true flesh and blood only once in the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary. But because of the papal transubstantiation, the body and blood of Jesus Christ must be made and created from the bread and wine at all times and many thousands of times, which is why the popes call themselves Creatores Creatoris, Creators of the Creator, in a booklet called Stella Clericorum, who create and make the Lord Jesus Christ anew, and say: They are more glorious than St. Mary, who would have made Christ only once. Mary, who would have given birth to Christ only once, but they, the sacristans, can make him new every day and thus create the Creator, which is indeed very blasphemous to hear. For in this way not only one body of Jesus Christ is formed, which is conceived in the body of the Blessed Virgin Mary through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, but another is introduced, which is made by the sacristans through the transformation of a loaf of bread. Who will accept this as a sound doctrine?
Why did Christ say: "This bread is my body"?
Christ did not use this way of speaking, but said: Eat, this is my body. For that which I give you with the bread is my body. And that is why St. Paul did not mean to say: The bread is the body of Christ, but the bread is the communion of the body of Jesus Christ. Much less does the Bible say: This bread is essentially transformed into the body of Christ. And even if Christ had said, "The bread is my body," it would not be concluded that the bread is transformed into the body, just as it does not follow from this statement that God is man that God is transformed into humanity, but rather that God is man through union without transformation. Thus in use the blessed bread is the body of Jesus Christ through union without all transformation, and just as God remains God, humanity remains humanity, unmixed, unmingled, yet united, so that God is truly man, thus bread remains bread, the body of Jesus Christ remains body, both unmixed, unmingled: but united through the institution of Jesus Christ, so that the bread is not taken without the body, the body not without the bread in the holy supper.
But it is possible for God to transform the bread into the body.
There is no doubt about that. The question is not whether God can do it, but whether he wants to do it. God could have instituted other sacraments, but he did not want to. God could have let the Last Day come a thousand years ago, but he did not want to. God could have given the Turkish emperor the Roman Empire, but he did not want to and hopefully will never want to. That is why the Psalm says [Psalms 135:6]: Whatever He wills, He does in heaven and on earth. God does not do all that He can, but all that He wills.
Couldn't their own teaching be used to refute them in this article?
This is quite possible. John Gerson, who was a distinguished and learned man, in giving reasons why the laity should not be given the cup, says, among other things, that there is a danger that the wine will spoil and turn into vinegar. What do I hear there? If the sacrament still contains real wine, what do they teach about the transformation, but if it is all blood, how can the blood of Jesus
Christ be corrupted? How can it become vinegar? Dear God, who hath fear, and seest not the vanity of this doctrine? From which all may hear how transubstantiation or transformation is not only without Scripture, but also contrary to Scripture. And if Christian hearts are asked for God's will, they will not allow themselves to be persuaded or duped by the Jesuits with their objections, but rather take heed of what St. Paul commands in the first epistle to Timothy in the 6th chapter [:20]: De vita oppositiones falso nominatae scientiae, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called. What more follows from this transformation, what errors arise from it, we will soon hear.
Chapter Navigation