A. The Lord's Supper was instituted by Jesus the same night that he was delivered: 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26; Mt. 26: 20-26; Mark 14: 17-22; Lk. 22: 19-23.
B. To be observed in their churches: Acts. 2:41, 42; 20: 7; 1 Corinthians 11: 17-22, 33.
C. Hasta el fin del mundo: Mr. 14:24, 25; Lk. 22: 17-22; 1 Corinthians 11: 24-26.
D. For the perpetual remembrance and the manifestation of the sacrifice of himself in his death: 1 Cor 11: 24-26; Matthew 26:27, 28; Lk. 22:19, 20.
E. To confirm the faith of believers in all the benefits of it: Ro. 4:11.
F. For their spiritual nourishment and growth in him: Jun. 6:29, from 35.47 to 58.
G To a greater commitment to all obligations owed ​​to him. 1 Cor 11:25.
H. And to be a bond and pledge of their communion with him and among them another: 1 Cor 10: 16,17.
A. In this ordinance Christ is not offered to his Father, nor any real sacrifice for the remission of sin or living or dead is made ​​at all; but it is only a memorial of that one offering of himself and by himself on the cross, once for ever . June 19:30.; I 9: 25-28; 10: 10-14; Lk. 22:19; 1 Cor 11:24, 25.
B. And a spiritual offering of all possible praise to God for the same: Mt. 26:26, 27, 30.
C. So the papal sacrifice of the mass, as they call it , is most abominable, injurious to the sacrifice of Christ himself, the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect: Hebrews 13: 10-16.
A. The Lord Jesus, in this ordinance, has appointed his ministers to pray and bless the elements of bread and wine, and that apart from a common use for sacred use; to take and break the bread, and take the cup and (participating also themselves) to give both participants: Co. 11: 23-26; Mt. 26: 26-28; Mark 14: 24,25; Lk. 22: 19-22.
A. Denying the cup to church members: Mt. 26:27; Mr. 14:23; 1 Corinthians 11: 25-28.
B. Worshipping the elements, raise them or take them from one place to another to worship and save themfor any pretended religious use: Ex. 20: 4, 5.
C. It is contrary to the nature of this ordinance since Christ instituted. Mt. 15: 9.
A. External elements of this ordinance, duly separated for use ordained by Christ, have such relation to the Crucified in a true sense, but figuratively, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, namely : the body and blood of Christ: 1 Cor 11:27; Matthew 26: 26-28.
B. However, in substance and nature, they still remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before:1 Corinthians 11: 26-28; Mt. 26:29.
A. The doctrine which maintains a change of substance of bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or in some other way, is repugnant not only to Scriptures. Mt. 26: 26-29; Lk. 24: 36-43, 50, 51; 1:14 June.; 20: 26-29;Acts. 1: 9-11; 3:21; 1 Corinthians 11: 24-26; Lk. 12: 1; Rev. 1:20.; Gn. 17:10, 11; Ez. 37:11; Gn.41:26, 27.
B. But also to common sense and reason; overthrows the nature of the ordinance; and it has been and is the cause of many superstitions and also of crass idolatry.
A. Those who receive this ordinance worthily: 1 Cor 11:28.
B. participating externally visible elements, also inwardly by faith, a real and true, though not carnal or bodily, but spiritually feeding of Christ crucified and receive all the benefits of his death: Jun. 6:29, 35, 47-58.
C: The body and blood of Christ are then neither carnal nor body but spiritually present in this ordinance for the faith of believers, as well as the elements themselves they are for your body senses: 1 Cor 10:16.
A. All ignorant and ungodly, not being unfit to enjoy communion with Christ are, therefore, unworthy of the Lord's table and, while they remain as such, can not, without sinning greatly against him, partake of these holy mysteries or admitted to them: Mt. 7: 6; Eph. 4: 17-24; 5: 3-9; Ex . 20: 7,16; 1 Cor 5: 9-13; 2 June 10.; Acts. 2: 41,42; 20: 7; 1 Corinthians 11: 17-22, 33-34.
B. also receive them unworthily whoever is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, for eats and drinks judgment to himself: 1 Cor 11: 20-22,27-34.


Martin Luther rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation held by the Roman Catholic Church, according to which the bread and wine of the Eucharist are actually converted into the body and blood of Christ.Luther saw no need for this doctrine.
Luther's position was that the presence of Christ did not replace the presence of bread and wine but was added to the bread and wine. Luther argued that the body and blood of Christ somehow were present with, in, and under the elements of bread and wine. It is customary to call the Lutheran position consubstantiation because the substance of the body and blood of Christ is present with (hence the use of the prefix with) the substance of bread and wine. Lutheran theologians, however, are not satisfied with the word consustanciación and protest that is understood in terms closely associated with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.
But it is clear that Luther insisted on physically real and substantial presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.
He repeatedly quoted the words of Jesus when he instituted the Supper, "This is my body" as evidence.Luther would not allow the verb is be taken in a figurative sense or representative.
Luther also adopted the doctrine of the communication of the attributes by which the divine attributes of omnipresence was communicated to the human nature of Jesus, making it possible for your body and blood were present in more than one place at the same time.
Zwingli and others argued that the words of Jesus, "This is my body" really meant "This represents my body." Jesus often used the verb to be with this figurative sense. He said: "I am the door", "I am the true vine," etc. Zwingli and others argued that the body of Christ is not present in its real substance in the Lord's Supper.
Dinner is just a commemoration, and the presence of Christ is not different from its normal presence through the Holy Spirit.
John Calvin, on the other hand, when struggling with Rome and Luther, denied the "substantial" presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. However, when struggling with the Anabaptists, that the Lord's Supper reduced to a mere commemoration, he stressed the "substantial" presence of Christ.
Superficially it appears that Calvin was caught in a flagrant contradiction. However, if we look at the details, we see that Calvin used the term substantial in two different ways. When Catholics and Lutherans his way, used the term to mean substantial "physical". He denied the physical presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. When he went to the Anabaptists he insisted on substantial term in the sense of "real".
Calvin was thus arguing that Christ was present in a true and real way in the Lord's Supper, but not in a physical sense.
As Calvin rejected the idea of ​​communication attributes of the divine nature to human nature, he was accused of separate or divide the two natures of Christ and committing the Nestorian heresy, which had been condemned by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD Calvin replied that he was not separating the two natures but that was distinguishing each other.
The nature of Jesus is located in the present in the sky. He remains in perfect union with his divine nature.
Although human nature is contained in one place, the person of Christ is not contained in the same way that human nature still has the power of ubiquity.
Jesus said, "Behold, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:20). Despite its limitations, and the risk of being misunderstood, then we give an illustration of what we are saying.
Human nature is subject to time and space. The divine nature is not subject to anything.
Calvin taught that though the body and blood of Christ remain in heaven, spiritually we are "made present" by divine and omnipresent nature of Jesus 1. Wherever the divine nature of Christ, He is truly present is present. This is consistent with Jesus ' own teaching that "would" but nevertheless continue toaccompany us. When we meet him in the Lord's Supper, we have fellowship with Him.
Standing in his divine presence, we are brought to his human presence mystically because his divine nature is never separated from his human nature. The divine nature leads us to Christ risen, and in the Lord's Supper we get a glimpse of what heaven is.
1. Luther taught that the body and blood of Christ were added with, in, and under the elements of bread and wine.
2. Zwingli taught that the Lord's Supper was a memorial.
3. Calvin denied the physical presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, but said the real presence of Christ.
4. The human nature of Christ is located in heaven; His divine nature is omnipresent.
Matthew 26: 26-29, 1 Corinthians 10: 13-17, 1 Corinthians 11: 23-34.


There is no more sacred or solemn moment in the life of the church that the celebration of the Lord's Supper. It is also called the Eucharist because during this meal a special encounter between Jesus and his people takes place. At that moment Jesus is present with us in a unique way.
The question is: How can I Christ be present with us in the Lord's Supper? This question has been the subject of endless controversy among Christians. It has not only been a matter of contention between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, but has also been an arena of conflict leaders-Luther, Calvin Reformation and Zuinglio- could not resolve among themselves.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation means that during the Mass a miracle by which the substance of the ordinary takes place elements of bread and wine becomes the substance of the body and blood of Christ. For human senses, the bread and wine do not exhibit any noticeable change. But Catholics believe that although the elements still resemble the breadand the wine, that taste like bread and wine, which smell like bread and wine, etc., really become the flesh and blood of Christ.
To understand this miracle is required to know something about the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle taught, to put it in simple terms, each object (entity) is composed of substance and accidents. The substance is, " the raw material" of something deeper essence. Accidents refer to the outside, external, or surface appearance of an object. They refer to the qualities of an object we see, feel, smell and savor.
For Aristotle always had an inseparable relationship between an object and its accidents. An elm tree, for example, always has the substance and accidents of being an elm. For something to have the substance of a thing and accidents else you would need a miracle.
Substance Essence
Qualities external perceptible accidents =
Substance Body and Blood of Christ
Accident Pan oy wine
This is the miracle of transubstantiation. The elements of bread and wine become the substance of the body and blood of Christ. Meanwhile, the accidents of bread and wine remain. Therefore, at Mass we have the substance of the body and blood of Christ without accidents body and blood, and the accidents of bread and wine without the substance of bread and wine.
Before the miracle takes place, we have the substance and the accidents of bread and wine.
Bread and Wine = Substance and accidents
The mana of Jesus spread all over the world would require deification of human nature. Both Luther and the Church Roman Catholic Church taught that the divine nature of Christ (which has the attributes of omnipresence) communicates this power to human nature to human nature, but usually localized, may be present in more than one place at the same weather.
But for Calvin and others, this idea of communication of divine attributes to human nature was considered a violation of Chalcedon (451 AD.), Who had claimed that the two natures of Christ, his humanity and his divinity, were united so as to be without confusion, without any change, without division and without separation, each nature retaining its own attributes. So for Calvin as for most of the thinkers of the Reformation, transubstantiation manifested a form of heresy.
After the miracle took place, we have the substance of the body and blood of Christ without the accidents of bread and wine.
More important than the controversy surrounding transubstantiation is the question about human nature of Jesus. The body and blood belong to humanity of Jesus and not to their deity. As the Mass is celebrated in different parts of the world at the same time, the question is, How can the human nature of Jesus (the body and blood) to be in more than one place at the same time? The power to become ubiquitous, being equally present everywhere, is an attribute of the deity, not humanity. To make it possible for human nature.
1. Transubstantiation means that during the Mass, the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the body and blood of Christ, while they appear to the senses as bread and wine.
2. The substance refers to the essence of a thing, while accidents refer to the perceived external qualities.
3. The transubstantiation requires empowering the human nature of Christ in the power of the divine attributes, that his body and blood may be in more than one place at the same time.
4. Calvin rejected transubstantiation as a violation of Chalcedon.
Mark 14: 22-25, 1 Corinthians 11: 23-26.


The Lord Jesus instituted two ordinances (or sacraments) that should be observed by the church. The previous chapter discussed baptism, an ordinance is observed only once for each person, as a sign of the beginning of their Christian life.
This chapter discusses the Lord's Supper, an ordinance must be observed repeatedly throughout our Christian life, as a sign of permanent fellowship with Christ.


Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper as follows: While they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it.Then he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying:
You drink it all. This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until the day I drink with you New Wine in the Kingdom of My Father. (Matthew 26: 26-29)
Paul Add the following phrases from the tradition he received (1 Corinthians 11: 23):
This cup is the new covenant in my blood; Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me. (1 Corinthians 11: 25)
Is there a history of this ceremony in the Old Testament? It seems that there are, because there were also examples of eating and drinking in the presence of God in the Old Testament. For example, when the people of God was camped at Mount Sinai, just after God gave the Ten Commandments, God called the leaders of Israel to go up the mountain to meet him:
Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel saw God, and carried on Lit. Life did eat and drink. (Exodus 24: 9-11)
Moreover, each year the people of Israel were Tithing (Give one-tenth) All crops. Then the Law of Moses It specified:
In the Presence of the Lord your God will eat the tenth part of your grain, your wine and your oil, and the firstborn of your flocks and herds; What you do in the place where Decide Habitar.
So always you will learn to fear the Lord your God ... And there, before the Lord your God, you and your family will eat and rejoice. (Deuteronomy 14: 23,26)
But even before that, God had placed Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and had given them all his wealth to eat (except the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil). Since there was no sin in that situation, and since God had created to have fellowship with him and glorify him, every meal ingested Adam and Eve would have been a celebratory meal in the presence of the Lord.
When this fellowship in God's presence was later tronchado for sin, God still allowed some meals (such as the tithe of the fruits mentioned above) that people should eat in their presence. These meals were a partial restoration of fellowship with God that Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall, although it was damaged by sin.
But eating fellowship in the Lord's presence found in the Lord's Supper is much better. The sacrificial meals in the Old Testament constantly pointed to the fact that had not yet paid for sins, because in them the sacrifices year recurred after year, and that pointed to the Messiah who would come and take away the sin (see Hebrews 10: 1-4). The Lord's Supper, however, reminds us that it has already accomplished Jesus' payment for our sins, so that now we eat in the presence of the Lord with great joy.
But even the Lord's Supper points to a meal more wonderful fellowship in the presence of God in the future when the fellowship of Eden is restored and there will be an even greater joy, for those who eat in the presence of God will be forgiven sinners now confirmed in his righteousness, incapable of sinning again. Jesus alludes to this future time of great rejoicing and eat in the presence of God when he says: "I tell you I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father "(Matthew 26: 29).
It speaks more explicitly about the marriage supper of the Lamb in Revelation: "The angel said," Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb!' "(Revelation 19: 19) . This will be a time of great rejoicing in the Lord's presence, as well as a time of awe before him.
Then, from Genesis to Revelation, God's purpose has been to bring his people into fellowship with himself, and one of the great joys of experiencing such fellowship is the fact that we can eat and drink in the presence of the Lord. It would be healthy for the church today regain a more vivid presence of God in the Lord's Supper sense.


The meaning of the Lord's Supper is complex, rich and full. In the Lord's Supper and there are several things that symbols are declared.
When we participate in the Lord's Supper we symbolize Christ's death for our actions give a picture of his death for us. When the bread is, this symbolizes the destruction of the body of Christ, and when the cup is poured, this symbolizes the blood of Christ that was shed for us.
For this reason participate in the Lord's Supper is a sort of proclamation: "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11: 26).
Jesus told his disciples: "Take and eat; this is my body "(Matthew 26. 26). When we anticipate individually and took the cup, each of us proclaims this action: "I appropriate the benefits of Christ's death." When we do this we symbolize the fact that we participate or we appropriate the benefits gained for us by the death of Jesus.
Just like ordinary food nourishes our physical bodies, and the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper give us food. But also describe the fact that Christ gives our souls and spiritual refreshment food. In fact, Christ instituted the ceremony is intended by nature to teach us that Jesus said:
I tell 'said Jesus, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is drink indeed.
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live by the Father, so he who eats me shall live by me John 6: 53-57).
Jesus certainly not talking about literally eating his body and blood. But if you do not speak of a literal eating and drinking, then you should have in mind a spiritual participation in the benefits of redemption that he conquers. This spiritual food so necessary to our souls, are already experiencing both symbolizes our participation in the Lord's Supper.
When believers participate together in the Lord's Supper also give a clear signal of unity with one another. In fact, Paul says: "There is one bread which we all participate; why, though many, are one body "(1 Corinthians 10: 17).
When you join these four things, we begin to realize the rich meaning of the Lord's Supper: when I participate I come into the presence of Christ; I remember that he died for me; participate in the benefits of his death; I receive spiritual food; and I am united with all other believers participating in the Supper.What a great reason for thanksgiving and joy is to be found in the Lord's Supper!
But besides these truths visibly exposed by the Lord's Supper that Christ instituted this ceremony for us and it means that through it he promises us and assures us certain things well.
When we participate in the Lord's Supper, it should remind us again and again the following statements that Christ makes us:
The fact that I participate in the Lord's Supper-in fact Jesus invites me to come-is a vivid reminder and visual confirmation that Jesus loves me, individually and personally. Therefore, when I approach to take the Lord's Supper and again staff confidence Christ's love for me is restored.
When I approach Christ's invitation to the Lord's Supper, the fact that he has invited me to his presence assures me that has abundant blessings for me. This fact tasting dinner beforehand food and drink great banquet at the King's table. I come to this table as a member of his eternal family.
When the Lord welcomes me to his table, he assures me that it will give me welcome all the other blessings of the earth and sky, and especially the great marriage supper of the Lamb, which has reserved a place for me.
I affirm my faith in Christ.
Finally, when I take the bread and the cup, by my actions I proclaim: "I need you and trust you, Lord Jesus to forgive my sins and grant life and health to my soul, because only by your broken body and blood shed can be saved. " In fact, by participating in the breaking of bread when I like and pouring the cup when I drink it, I do hereby proclaim again and again that my sins were partly the cause of suffering and death of Christ. Thus, grief, joy, thanksgiving and a deep love for Christ richly intermingle in the beauty of the Lord's Supper.


According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. This occurs when the priest says, "This is my body" during the celebration of Mass. At the same time the priest says this, the bread rises and adores. This action of raising the bread and pronounce that it is the body of Christ can only be performed by a priest.
When this happens, according to Roman Catholic teaching, grace is imparted to those present ex opera operato, that is, "for the work done," but the amount of grace dispensed is in proportion to the subjective disposition of gracia.2 receptor Moreover, every time the Mass is celebrated, the sacrifice of Christ (in a sense) is repeated, and the Catholic church is careful to say that this is a real sacrifice, but not the same the sacrifice that Christ paid on the cross.
So Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott teach the following: Christ is present in the Sacrament of the Altar by the transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Holy Body and of the whole substance of the wine into his Blood.
This transformation is called transubstantiation. The power of consecration resides only in his priest validly consecrated.
The Worship of Adoration (Latria) should be given to Christ present in the Eucharist.
This reflects the integrity and permanence of the Real Presence that absolute tribute of worship (Cultus Latriae) owes to Christ present in the Eucharist. (P. 387)
In Catholic teaching, because the elements of bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ, the church does not allow for many centuries that lay people drink from the cup of the Lord's Supper (for fear the blood of Christ) spilling but only eat bread. Ott manual tells us:
Communion under both forms is not required for any individual member of the Faithful, either by reason of Divine precept or as a means of salvation The reason is that Christ is whole and entire under each species.
The abolition of the reception of the chalice in the Middle Ages (12th and 13th centuries) ordered for practical reasons, mainly because of the danger of profanation of the Sacrament. (P. 397)
With respect to the actual sacrifice of Christ at Mass manual Ott says: The Mass is an appropriate and true Sacrifice. (P. 402)
In the Sacrifice of the Mass and in the Sacrifice of the Cross the Sacrificial Don and the Primordial Sacrifice Priest are identical; only the nature and manner of the offering are different. Sacrificial Don is the Body and Blood of Christ the Priest Primordial Sacrifice is Jesus Christ, who uses the human priest as his servant and representative and performs the consecration through it.
According to the point of Thomist view, at every Mass Christ also it performs a real immediate sacrificial activity which, however, should not be conceived as the totality of many successive actions but as a single unbroken sacrificial act of Christ transfigured.
The purpose of the sacrifice is the same in the Sacrifice of the Mass that the sacrifice of the Cross; first the glorification of God, second atonement, thanksgiving and supplication. (P. 408)
As a propitiatory sacrifice ... the Sacrifice of the Mass performs the remission of sins and punishment for sins; as a sacrifice of supplication ... encourages the dispensation of supernatural and natural gifts. The propitiation of the Eucharist can be offered, as expressly stated the Council of Trent, not only for the living but also for the poor souls in Purgatory. (Pp. 412-13).
In response to Roman Catholic teaching on the Lord's Supper it must be said that she first fails to recognize the symbolic character of the claims of Jesus when he said: "This is my body" or "This is my blood." Jesus often spoke symbolically when referring to himself. He said, for example, "I am the true vine 'John 15: 1). Or "I am the door; whoever enters through this door, it's me, shall be saved "John 10: 9); or, "I am the bread that came down from heaven" John 6: 41).
Similarly, when Jesus says, "This is my body", symbolically speaking, not a real, physical and literal. In fact, when he sat with his disciples holding the bread, the bread was in his hand but was different from his body, and that was obvious, of course, for the disciples.
None of the disciples present would have thought the piece of bread that Jesus held in his hand was actually his physical body, because they could see the body before his eyes. Naturally, they would have understood Jesus' statement in a symbolic way. Similarly, when Jesus said, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you "(Luke 22: 20), certainly did not mean that the cup was actually the new covenant, but the cup represented new covenant.
Moreover, the point of Roman Catholic view fails to recognize the clear teaching of the New Testament on the final and complete sacrifice of Christ for our sins once and forever. The book of Hebrews emphasizes this many times, as when he says he did not enter heaven to offer himself again and again, as the high priest in the holy place every year with blood of others.
If so, Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. Unlike now, at the end of the times it has appeared once and for all to end sin by the sacrifice of himself ... Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many "( Hebrews 9: 25-28).
To say that the sacrifice of Christ continues or is repeated at Mass has been, since the Reformation, one of the most objectionable from the point of view of Roman Catholic doctrines Protestants. When we realize that the sacrifice of Christ for our sins is complete and accomplished (is finished, John 19: 30; Hebrews 1: 3), it gives us great certainty that has been paid for all our sins, and already no sacrifice is not payable.
But the idea of ​​a continuation of Christ's sacrifice destroys our certainty that Christ made the payment and that God the Father accepted, and that "there is no condemnation}) (Romans 8: 1) now pending against us.
For Protestants, the idea that the Mass is in some sense a repetition of Christ's death seems to signal a return to the repeated sacrifices of the Old Testament, which were (an annual reminder of sins) (Hebrews 10: 3) . Instead of the certainty of complete forgiveness of sins through (one sacrifice forever) (Heb 10: 12), the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice repeated is a constant reminder of sin and guilt slope that must be atoned week after week.
In connection with the teaching that only priests can officiate at the Lord's Supper, the New Testament offers no instruction to pose restrictions on who can preside at Communion. And as the Scripture poses no such restrictions, it does not seem justified to say that only priests can dispense the elements of the Lord's Supper.
On the other hand, as the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests and members of a (royal priesthood) (1 Peter 2: 9; Hebrews 4: 16; 10: 19-22), we must not specify a certain class of people who have the rights of priests, as in the old covenant, but we must emphasize that all believers share the great spiritual privilege of approaching God.
Finally, any maintenance of the restriction would not make possible the laity drink the cup of the Lord's Supper would use the argument of tradition and caution to justify disobedience of the direct commands of Jesus, not only the commandment to his disciples when he said: (drink from it all of you) (Matthew 26. 27), but the instruction that Paul recorded, in which Jesus said (to do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me) (1 Corinthians 11.25). 
"In, with, and under". Martin Luther rejected the Roman Catholic view point, but insisted that the phrase "This is my body" had to take it in a sense as a literal statement. His conclusion was not really the bread becomes the physical body of Christ, but that the physical body of Christ is present (in, with and under) the bread of the Lord's Supper.
The example that is sometimes offered is that the body of Christ is present in bread and water is present in a sponge-water is not the sponge, but is present "in, with, and under") sponge and it is present wherever the sponge is present.
Other examples provided with the magnetism in a magnet or a soul in the body.
The Lutheran understanding of the Lord's Supper is in the manual Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics "This quote the Small Catechism of Luther:" What is the Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians eat and drink, instituted by Christ himself. "
Similarly, the Augsburg Confession, Article X, says, "From the Lord's Supper they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed to those who eat at the Lord's Supper '"
A passage may think supports this position is 1 Corinthians 10: 16, "This bread that we break, does not mean that we enter into communion with the body of Christ?
However, in order to declare this doctrine, Luther had to answer an important question: "How can the body of Christ, or more generally the human nature of Christ, be present everywhere? Is it not true that Jesus ascended to heaven in human nature and remains there until his return? He said he was leaving the earth and no longer be in the world but going to the Father (John 16: 28; 17: 11)? In response to this problem Luther taught the ubiquity of the human nature of Christ after his ascension-that is, the human nature of Christ was present everywhere (ubiquitous).
But theologians from the time of Luther suspected that he taught the ubiquity of the human nature of Christ, not because it is somewhere in Scripture, but because I needed to explain how his view of consubstantiation could be true.
In response to the Lutheran point of view, we can say that this does not understand that Jesus is trying to teach a spiritual reality but using physical objects, saying: "This is my body." We must not understand this more literally than we understand the corresponding statement, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 22: 20).
In fact, Luther does not do justice at all to the words of Jesus in a literal way. Berkhof objects correctly that Luther makes the words of Jesus mean: "This accompanies my body." In this issue would help rereading John 6: 27-59, where the context shows that Jesus speaks in literal terms, physical, on bread, but continually explained in terms of a spiritual reality.
Unlike Martin Luther, John Calvin and other Reformers they argued that the bread and wine into the Lord's Supper is not changed into the body and blood of Christ, nor contained somehow the body and blood of Christ.
Rather, the bread and wine symbolizing the body and blood of Christ, and they offered a visible sign of the fact that Christ himself was truly present. Calvin said:
Al Show Symbol Shows The Same Thing. Because unless a man want to call God Liar, never dare to claim that Divulga an empty symbol and Divinity must by all means keep his word: Whenever See Symbols decreed by the Lord, to think and Be Persuaded that the truth of the thing denoted There is certainly present. Well Why would the Lord His Hands Symbol Of His Body, except to ensure you an effective voice in this? (Institutes, 4. 17. 10; P. 1371)
But Calvin was careful to defer both the Roman Catholic teaching (which says that the bread becomes the body of Christ) and the Lutheran teaching (which says that the bread contains the body of Christ).
But we must establish that the presence of Christ in the Supper can not ceñirlo the element of bread, nor put him on bread, nor limited in any way (it is clear that all these things remove him from his heavenly glory). (Institutes, 4. 17. 19; p.138l)
Today most Protestants would say, in addition to the fact that the bread and wine symbolizing the body and blood of Christ, that Christ is spiritually present in a special way when we partake of bread and wine.Certainly, Jesus promised to be present whenever believers worship: "For two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in their midst" (Matthew 18: 20).
And if he is especially present when Christians gather to worship, then we would expect that he would be present in a special way in the Lord's Supper: We met him at his table, which is to surrender to us. As we receive the elements of bread and wine into Christ's presence, so partake of it and all its benefits.
"We fed him in our hearts" with thanksgiving. By the way, even a child who knows Christ will understand this without being taught and expect to receive a special blessing from the Lord during this ceremony, because its meaning is entirely inherent in the various actions of eating and drinking. But we should not say that Christ is present apart from our personal faith, but only finds us and blesses there according to our faith in him.
How is Christ present then? Certainly there is a symbolic presence of Christ, but it is also a spiritual presence and there is a genuine spiritual blessing in this ceremony.


Despite differences on some aspects of the Lord's Supper, most Protestants would agree, first, that only those who believe in Christ should participate in it, for it is a sign of being a Christian and remain in the Christian life.
Paul warns that those who eat and drink unworthy manner face serious consequences: "For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks his own condemnation. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and even some have died "(1 Corinthians 11: 29-30).
Second, many Protestants argue from the meaning of baptism and the meaning of the Lord's Supper that usually only those who have been baptized must join the Lord's Supper. This is because baptism is clearly a symbol of Christian life start, while the Lord's Supper is clearly a symbol of staying in the Christian life.
Thus if someone takes the Lord's Supper and thus publicly proclaims that she or he is kept in the Christian life, then you should ask that person: "It would be nice to be baptized now and thus provide a symbol that you start Christian life? "
But others, including this author, would object to such restrictions as follows: a different problem arises if someone who is a genuine believer, but not yet baptized, is not allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper when Christians gather. In that case the non-participation of the person symbolizes that she or he is not a member of the body of Christ who gather to observe the Lord's Supper in a united brotherhood (see 1 Corinthians 10: 17, "There is one bread which all we participate, so although we are many, are one body ").So the churches may think it is better not to allow unbaptized believers participate in the Lord's Supper but urged to be baptized as soon as possible.
For if they are willing to participate in an outward symbol of being a Christian, there seems no reason that they are not willing to participate in the other, a symbol itself comes first.
Of course, the problems that arise in both situations (when unbaptized believers take Communion and when they do not) can all be overridden by the new Christians are regularly baptized shortly after coming to faith. And any position to assume the church on this issue on whether unbaptized believers should take Communion, it would seem advisable to teach in the magisterium of the church, that the ideal situation is that new believers are baptized first and then participate the Lord's Supper.
The third requirement for participation is that of self-examination:
Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. So everyone should examine yourself before eating the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, how and drinking his own condemnation. (1 Corinthians 11: 27-29)
In the context of 1 Corinthians 11 Paul rebukes the Corinthians for their selfish and inconsistent behavior when they get together as a church: "In fact, when assembled, is no longer to eat the Lord's Supper, because everyone comes forward to eating his own dinner, so that some go hungry while others get drunk "(1 Corinthians 11: 29). This helps us to understand what Paul means when he speaks of those who eat and drink "without discerning the body" (1 Corinthians 11: 29).
The problem in Corinth was not a failure to realize that the bread and the cup represented the body and blood of the Lord-they certainly knew this. Instead, the problem was selfish and inconsiderate behavior towards each other while they were at the Lord's Supper.
They did not understand or "discern" the true nature of the church as a body. This interpretation of "without discerning the body" is based on the mention of Paul of the church as the body of Christ just a little earlier, in 1 Corinthians 10: 17, "There is one bread which we all participate; why, though many, are one body "
So the phrase "without discerning the body" means "do not understand the unity and interdependence of people in the church, which is the body of Christ." This means not care about our brothers and sisters when we come to the Lord's Supper, in which we reflect his character.
What then does eating or drinking "unworthily" (1 Corinthians 11: 27)? First we think that words are applied more strictly and have to do only with the way we conduct ourselves when in fact we eat and drink the bread and wine. But when Paul explains that participation unworthy means "not discerning the body" indicates that we care about all our relationships within the body of Christ: We act in ways that portray not vividly unit of bread and one body, but disunity?
We act in ways that proclaim not the selfless sacrifice of our Lord, but enmity and selfishness? In a broad sense, then: "Let each one examine himself" means that we must ask whether our relationships in the body of Christ reflect in fact the character of the Lord we found there and who we represent.
In this regard, Jesus' teaching about coming to worship in general should also be mentioned:
Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar. First be reconciled to thy brother;Then come and offer your gift. (Matthew 5: 23-24)
Here Jesus tells us that when we come to worship we must be sure that our relationships with others are correct, and if not 10 are, we must act quickly to correct them and then come to worship God. This admonition should be especially true when we come to the Lord's Supper.
Of course, no pastor or church leader will know if people are examined or not themselves (except in cases when an offensive or sinful behavior becomes evident to others). In large part, the church has to rely on pastors and teachers to clearly explain the meaning of the Lord's Supper and warn of the dangers of partaking unworthily. Then people will have the responsibility to examine their own lives, according to 10 Paul says.
In fact, Paul does not say that pastors should examine the life of everyone, but instead urges the Individual self-examination: "So everyone should examine himself" (1 Corinthians 11: 28).


Who should administer the Lord's Supper? Scripture provides no specific teaching on this issue, so we can only decide what is wise and appropriate for the benefit of believers in the church.
To preserve the Lord's Supper abuse, a responsible leader should be in charge of managing it, but it seems that Scripture requires that only ordained clergy or official church chosen to do so. In ordinary situations, of course, the pastor or other leader usually officiates in the worship services of the church also oficiarían properly in Communion.
But beyond this, there seems no reason why only officials or leaders alone, or only men, should distribute the items. You do not speak more clearly of our unity in Christ and spiritual equality if both men and women, for example, attend in the distribution of the elements of the Lord's Supper.
How often the Lord's Supper should be celebrated? Scripture does not tell us. Jesus said simply: "For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup" (1 Corinthians 11: 26). It would be appropriate to consider here also the guideline Paul on services of worship: "Let all for edification" (2 Corinthians 14: 26).
It has really been the practice of most churches throughout its history to celebrate the Lord's Supper every week when believers gather. However, in many Protestant groups since the Reformation, there has been less frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper-sometimes once or twice a month, or, in many Reformed churches, only four times a year.

If planned and explained and carried out the Lord's Supper so that is a time of self-examination, confession, thanksgiving and praise, then celebrate it once a week would be too frequent, however, and it certainly can be observed that often "for edification."