Consubstantiation/Lutherans

[hn160]

When Luther came up with this analogy…Luther illustrated his belief about the Eucharist “by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged,”

How is this not trying to explain the change? or trying to come up with an explanation?

I have a theory, he was probably mad at the pope that day.

 

[MaryT777]

I have a theory, he was probably mad at the pope that day.

?
Luther did have a theory about the real presence and an explanation; that’s what is with and under is
Mary.

 

[benjohnson]

?
Luther did have a theory about the real presence and an explanation; that’s what is with and under is
Mary.

Explinations for the curious mind are fine and noble. Where Lutherans object is when those explinations seem to become too important. Our Lord gave His word, and prehaps should take that as sufficent.

 

[pablope]

I have a theory, he was probably mad at the pope that day.

Luther got mad at the pope probably because Luther’s idea was against Church teaching…:and Luther could not get the pope to endorse his idea…

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/06/lutheran-pastor-shows-need-for-catholic.html

A Lutheran pastor says…Pastor Anderson says:
As the gap widens [between Luther and the Church], as Luther finds that the papal see is not very responsive, does not want to be responsive to him, they’re more interested in, as he said, “fleecing the hide of the German sheep” than they are in dealing with these important theological matters, Luther moves away, more and more, from Tradition, he moves towards Scripture. He finds himself having to defend himself, more and more, not so much based upon Church Fathers, but upon Scripture alone,…

so despite a well-meaning start, Luther’s hit two bumps in the road. First, the reforms he suggests aren’t immediately accepted, and his own ideas don’t seem as brilliant to the pope as they do to him, and Luther gets impatient, and then embittered (hence the hurling of insults about fleecing the German sheep, and many more far worse)…So what’s Luther’s response? Besides hurling insults, it’s too look for what Anderson calls “ammunition.” When he finds that while he can’t defend some of his ideas from Christian Tradition, he can use certain verses of the Bible to make it sound like he’s right…So Luther turned to sola Scriptura not because Scripture says so (It doesn’t), but because it means he doesn’t have to concede he’s wrong, when he doesn’t feel like he’s wrong.

 

[pablope]

Explinations for the curious mind are fine and noble. Where Lutherans object is when those explinations seem to become too important. Our Lord gave His word, and prehaps should take that as sufficent.

Then why did Luther come up with his explanation and analogy? Why did he just not say…the Lord’s words are sufficient?

And isn’t the analogy…the explanations, theories…are these not tools to teach the faithful?

Are these not tools for the faithful to grow in faith?

Where Lutherans object is when those explinations seem to become too important.

Well…it seems to me…the Catholics responded with Transub to counter Luther’s SU…so it seems these explanations became necessary because of Luther’s ideas which seem to not have sat well with the Church? (because they were against Church teaching and tradition)…that is why Trent had to clarify…?..

 

[benjohnson]

Then why did Luther come up with his explanation and analogy? Why did he just not say…the Lord’s words are sufficient?

He did! “Ist ist ist!”

As I understand it, makeing the definition of Transubstantiation a matter of dogma was more againt those in Geniva.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Ist ist ist!” I haven’t heard this?

 

[MaryT777]

He did! “Ist ist ist!”

As I understand it, makeing the definition of Transubstantiation a matter of dogma was more againt those in Geniva.

Maybe the subject of Transubstantiation could be the topic of a different thread?

Catholics don’t deny we use the term Transubstantiation yet Lutherans use the words “in with and under” and deny the concept of Consubstantiation or the use of any explanation for the mystery of the real presence.

I started this thread because it’s so often attributed to Lutherans the Consubstantiation concept and I know the Lutherans will show up on any thread to defend against that this thought LOL! (Anglican thread) That way we can discuss it all in one place!

Peace in Christ,
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

In sacramental theology there is very little difference of opinion, if any, among Lutherans.

As you and I both know, EC, since you traveled from LCMS to ELCA, and I traveled from ELCA to LCMS, Lutheran sacramental theology is Lutheran sacramental theology.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Yes, the worthiness of the communicant is a different question. Some Lutherans literally do not allow anyone to commune unless they are in full agreement on all theological issues. The majority of Lutherans, however, welcome all Christians who are baptized and believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Mass.

I would reject completely the implication that our use of close communion has anything to do with the “worthiness” of the communicant. The worthiness of the communicant is in God’s hands, not ours. Rather, it has to do with unity of belief, not merely regarding the sacrament, but also the faith in total. That is why there are members of Lutheran synods worldwide that are welcome to our altars through ful fellowship, and there are Lutherans of other synods who* may* receive, depending on circumstances and their stated beliefs, if their synod is not in complete fellowship with us.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I would reject completely the implication that our use of close communion has anything to do with the “worthiness” of the communicant. The worthiness of the communicant is in God’s hands, not ours. Rather, it has to do with unity of belief, not merely regarding the sacrament, but also the faith in total. That is why there are members of Lutheran synods worldwide that are welcome to our altars through ful fellowship, and there are Lutherans of other synods who* may* receive, depending on circumstances and their stated beliefs, if their synod is not in complete fellowship with us.

Jon

or may NOT right? A LCMS pastor has the final determination whether or not an ELCA member can Commune at the altar of Christ right?
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

I had a LCMS pastor friend and I attended Lutheran Worship as a visitor ( I did not Commune of Course; I am Catholic) but they did say “in with and under” which is an explanation of Holy Communion in my opinion.

That lends itself then to thoughts of the understanding of Consubstantiation.

They don’t call their service Mass here.

Mary,
It only lends itself to those thoughts for you because your understanding of the expression of the sacrament is in metaphysical terms, that being Transubstantiation. Now, this is not a criticism of you or any other Catholic. Its to be expected.

Sacramental union, OTOH, is not in any way a metaphysical construct. It isn’t meant to be. The use of the terms “in, with, and under” are not intended to imply at all a consubstantiation (co-mixing, or new substance out of a combining of bread and body).

Herman Sasse: *** It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say. ***

As you see, the expression is “in, with, and under”, the doctrine is “this is my body”, etc. And there is a parallel here to the Catholic use of Transubstantiation, that being to find a way to express the mystery in such a way that the faithful may have a form of understanding to grasp regarding Christ’s words, “This is my body”, etc.

This parallel seems quite enough evident that Lutheran and Catholic theologians in dialogue have said this:

Eucharistic Presence

Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.

In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.

The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.

The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Mary,
It only lends itself to those thoughts for you because your understanding of the expression of the sacrament is in metaphysical terms, that being Transubstantiation. Now, this is not a criticism of you or any other Catholic. Its to be expected.

Sacramental union, OTOH, is not in any way a metaphysical construct. It isn’t meant to be. The use of the terms “in, with, and under” are not intended to imply at all a consubstantiation (co-mixing, or new substance out of a combining of bread and body).

Herman Sasse: *** It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say. ***

As you see, the expression is “in, with, and under”, the doctrine is “this is my body”, etc. And there is a parallel here to the Catholic use of Transubstantiation, that being to find a way to express the mystery in such a way that the faithful may have a form of understanding to grasp regarding Christ’s words, “This is my body”, etc.

This parallel seems quite enough evident that Lutheran and Catholic theologians in dialogue have said this:

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

I disagree Jon, In with and Under is simply not Biblical; that’s my main point Jesus didn’t say in with and under.

Mary

 

[JonNC]

I disagree Jon, In with and Under is simply not Biblical; that’s my main point Jesus didn’t say in with and under.

Mary

He also didn’t say transubstantiated. He didn’t even say “changed into”. He said “this is my body”. Again, from a Lutheran perspective, this is the point of the doctrine, that the bread is His body, the wine is His blood, as He states in His own words.

So, we both understand that our methods of describing the real presence both use terms and expressions not found specifically in scripture, regardless of how hard some might want to squeeze scripture to their view. What we agree on is, “this is my body” - the doctrine of the real presence.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

or may NOT right? A LCMS pastor has the final determination whether or not an ELCA member can Commune at the altar of Christ right?
Mary.

In the same way a Catholic priest - or bishop - does.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

He also didn’t say transubstantiated. He didn’t even say “changed into”. He said “this is my body”. Again, from a Lutheran perspective, this is the point of the doctrine, that the bread is His body, the wine is His blood, as He states in His own words.

So, we both understand that our methods of describing the real presence both use terms and expressions not found specifically in scripture, regardless of how hard some might want to squeeze scripture to their view. What we agree on is, “this is my body” - the doctrine of the real presence.

Jon

I can’t go there on this one Jon.
In with and under in not Scriptural and the Lutherans insist they don’t describe the mystery but they do indeed do so. They also insist the Bible is the sole rule and norm of faith and the Bible says no such thing.

I agree to disagree.
Holy Communion is too important to settle for in with and under for me.

Mary;

 

[MaryT777]

In the same way a Catholic priest - or bishop - does.

Jon

Of course the sources of that authority are different though.

 

[JonNC]

Of course the sources of that authority are different though.

Different only by communion. The synod sets the policy in this way, so it too is ecclesial.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I can’t go there on this one Jon.
In with and under in not Scriptural and the Lutherans insist they don’t describe the mystery but they do indeed do so. They also insist the Bible is the sole rule and norm of faith and the Bible says no such thing.

I agree to disagree.
Holy Communion is too important to settle for in with and under for me.

Mary;

Mary,

The Bible states the doctrine - the real presence. Our expression sacramental union is not in conflict, but instead supports that doctrine stated in scripture. So, there is no conflict with the practice of sola scriptura.

I am not asking anyone to “settle for” or even accept it. Just to understand it, and not refer to it incorrectly as consubstantiation.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Mary,

The Bible states the doctrine - the real presence. Our expression sacramental union is not in conflict, but instead supports that doctrine stated in scripture. So, there is no conflict with the practice of sola scriptura.

I am not asking anyone to “settle for” or even accept it. Just to understand it, and not refer to it incorrectly as consubstantiation.

Jon

I understand that Jon. I still disagree in with and under is scriptural and don’t believe it should be said as a proper understanding of what is said in the Bible.

We agree to disagree.
No problem here.
Mary.