No. 15 I�d like to move on to the Lord�s Supper. When speaking of this means of grace, my Roman Catholic friends refer to it as �the Eucharist�. I have heard some Lutherans use that term too. What should we say, Lord�s Supper or Eucharist? >>PROFESSOR ROLAND ZIEGLER: Well, here it's probably not appropriate, David, to say, "What's in a name?" Because there are certain different shades of meaning. The most popular term, yes, among Roman Catholics today is Eucharist. In the old days before Vatican 2 you heard also the term sacrifice of the mass or simply mass. But nowadays it's mostly the celebration of the Eucharist. And the change of name in a way shows, also, a difference in theology or a shift in theology. What names are there for this sacrament, for this sacred act in the church? I think most Lutherans use the Lord's Supper. And that's a term that goes back to the New Testament when Paul talks about the supper of the Lord, the ***cura koip danum in I Corinthians 10. It's a relative bland term. On the other hand, it is a pretty good term because it says it's a supper that is -- it's a meal. And the specific difference is it is the meal of the Lord, that is Christ. That's all the name tells you. Eucharist comes, also, from the Bible. It comes from the Greek word ***euchrestao. That means to give thanks. And from the Words of Institution, you know that's one of the things that Jesus did. He took the bread, broke it, gave thanks. Gave it to them and said. So the giving of things as a part of the liturgy of the Lord's Supper was the origin of the name Eucharist. Eucharist is not a bad name because it tells you something we do in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, that we give thanks. The one thing I don't like particularly that much about that term is that the Eucharist shifts the emphasis to what we do. Because we give thanks. So I am a little bit hesitant. But on the other hand, Eucharist has become the ecumenical term. Everybody calls it the Eucharist. Roman Catholics, Lutherans now. Anglicans. And there is a document by the world counselor of churches about ecumenical convergence, the so-called Lima Document. That's Lima, Peru, not Lima, Ohio. That's why it's called the Lima Document. Not the Lima document. The Lima Document is called baptism, Eucharist, and the ministry. So in the ecumenical movement, the term Eucharist also has become the favorite term. Sometimes it's simply called Communion. "Do you go to Communion today?" And everybody knows from the context that means you go to receive the body and blood of Christ. Communion has two aspects. It is the Communion with Christ through the elements to which he gives his body and blood. And it is also the Communion with each other in this meal. You are entering the Communion of all those who partake of this gift at the altar. And that also goes back to I Corinthians 10 when Paul calls it a ***koina nia. And that was translated as Communion. In the Catechism you learned the sacrament of the altar. Okay. The sacrament of the altar is also -- is a later term. It does not go back to the New Testament. Lutherans have altars. Reformed don't. They have tables. And the Reformed are aware probably more -- were always a little bit suspicious of the Lutherans because the altar is literally a place where you sacrifice. Now, Lutherans do not believe in the sacrifice of the mass. That's the next term we talk about. But they retain the name altar and say we can call it whatever we want as long as we don't associate it as a place of sacrifice. So that's another term. But I think outside of the Catechism, Lutherans don't use this term very much. Now, I mentioned the sacrifice of the mass. And that's the old term that was used in the Roman Catholic Church. Mass itself is a pretty bland term. It's the term for the entire service. And it really comes from the conclusion when the priest said: ***etamisa est, go you are dismissed. It's kind of a strange twist in the history of liturgics that the service got its name from its dismissal. But you know, sometimes it's not quite logical how things go in history. So the sacrifice of the mass is the sacrifice that happens in this service. And this is the sacrifice that the church through the priest and ultimately Christ himself sacrifices his body and blood to God the Father in the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Since we don't believe that the sacrifice is the mass, it's not really a term that the Lutherans want to use. In the Reformation time when this was a real problem, you rather had some kind of polemical terms like the abomination of mass. Among evangelicals, non-denominational churches, you sometimes hear the use of the breaking of bread. That comes from Acts where in several passages it is mentioned that they came together to break bread. And in Acts 2 when the first congregation in Jerusalem is described, that's one of the features. They stayed together in the prayer, the teaching of the apostles and in the breaking of bread. The Lutherans do not use that term generally. Because actually they don't break bread historically. That has for its reason that the Reformed said: When you celebrate the Lord's Supper, you have to break the bread. Whereas the Lutherans said: No. The breaking of bread is just part of the distribution. And if you use wafers and not regular bread, you don't have to break it. It's not a symbolic important gesture. So because Reformed said in the 17th century, "You have to break bread," the Lutherans said, "Well, if you tell us that we have to, we won't just to show you that we are free not to do that." That might seem a little bit silly to you. But on the other hand, it was a demonstration of Christian freedom. It's a little bit like the faculty in the university of Wittenberg at the pietistic controversies when the pietists said as a Christian you can't go dancing. They said: Well, let's demonstrate our Christian freedom and let's all go to a ball. That was of course ill received by the pietists. But it was a demonstration of Christian freedom. And sometimes you have to do that. And you offend people who think they are much better Christians than you are. A student here at the seminary with a background from Estonia told me that in Estonia, they call the Lord's Supper a love feast. Now, that's a nice term, even though probably if you would use it today, it would remind you a little bit more of tie-dyed shirts than the Lord's Supper. But again, it's not our tradition. And in Germany it's simply called the evening meal. Because in the night or in the evening before he was betrayed. So we have a whole array of names. And you can use different names as long as they do not convey a false understanding of the Lord's Supper. I myself do prefer the term Lord's Supper. I think it's closest to Scripture. It conveys that this is the supper of Christ, which is important against all misunderstandings of the Lord's Supper, that this is some kind of happening of the congregation where we all get together, share a little food and affirm that we are all one in the Spirit. We are all one in the Lord. No, this is Christ himself who is the Lord of this feast. That is he is the host. And he is the gift. So I don't want to make a law out of that. But I think that the tradition to call it the Lord's Supper is a pretty good one. If you wanted to use the Eucharist, you can do that. Again, it's for reasons stated I'm not too fond of the term. But it has become an accepted term. And the Lutheran Confessions can also use the term Eucharist as an acceptable term. But it has never been the preferred term. In Latin, yes. But not in German or in other languages.