Consubstantiation/Lutherans

[manualman]

Jon, can you define the “consubstantiation” that you say Lutherans reject? Perhaps we just have a problem of definitions here. When catholics hear the words “in, with and under” we note that the prefix “con” literally means “with”.

To us, it sure sounds like Lutherans using that phrase are saying “yes the bread and wine are still there, but Jesus is too.” That’s what bugs us and makes us call it consubstantiation. As we understand it, the bread and wine AREN’T there anymore at the deepest levels of reality (which are beyond the senses).

 

[JonNC]

Jon, can you define the “consubstantiation” that you say Lutherans reject? Perhaps we just have a problem of definitions here. When catholics hear the words “in, with and under” we note that the prefix “con” literally means “with”.

To us, it sure sounds like Lutherans using that phrase are saying “yes the bread and wine are still there, but Jesus is too.” That’s what bugs us and makes us call it consubstantiation. As we understand it, the bread and wine AREN’T there anymore at the deepest levels of reality (which are beyond the senses).

I mentioned n one of these threads that I believe Catholics have difficulty with sacramental union because they come into the conversation with a metaphysical understanding, that being Transubstantiation. So, the see SU as with that same lens, and see consubstantiation. That’s not a criticism. It is to be expected.

Only once is the term “in, with, and under” used in the confessions. Typically, you will see “under” or “in and under”. But on to a definition of consubstantiation:

The Lutheran Cyclopedia states:

Consubstantiation: View, falsely charged to Lutheranism, **that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner. **

Wikipedia:
Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine that (like Transubstantiation) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental “substance” of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. The doctrine of consubstantiation is often held in contrast to the doctrine of transubstantiation. The adjective consubstantial however describes a different theological concept.

Consubstantiation is, first and foremost, a metaphysical construct. On this point itself it has been rejected since Luther and the reformers.

Consubstantiation a co-local existence of substances body and bread, or a co-mingling of body and bread forming a new 3rd substance.

We reject both definitions. We do not claim a co-local existence, and we certainly don’t believe a third substance is formed.

Instead,

Francis Pieper:

The discussion of the twofold material and the *unio sacramentalis *gives rise to the question how to define more definitely the manner (modus) of the taking of body and blood. We say: (1) Because the twofold material is combined into a sacramental unity, that is, since Christ gives His body with the bread and His blood with the wine, we receive with the mouth (manducatio oralis) not merely the bread and wine, but also the body and blood of Christ. (2) Since, however, the union of the material coelestis with the material terrena is not a natural or local, but a supernatural union (no localis inclusio, impanatio, consubstantiatio), we receive the body and blood of Christ with the mouth not in a natural, but in a supernatural manner. On the basis of the unio sacramentalis the Formula of Concord, on the one hand, adheres to the oral receiving of Christ’s body and blood; on the other hand, to the supernatural manner of the reception. It says: “When at the table and during the Supper mensaie assidens], He [Christ] offers His disciples natural bread and natural wine, which He calls His true body and true blood, at the same time saying: ‘Eat and drink.’ For in view of the circumstances this command evidently cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way.”

The words that constantly come up are “supernatural” and “incomprehensible”. IOW, we know that the bread is His body that we receive orally. We just don’t know how bread can be body, other than by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I can’t recall the exact information but it is my understanding that Luther or the early Lutherans cited an example of wine being accidentally spilled at the altar rail. The action was to even shave the wood in order to reverently pick up the Blood of Christ. The fact is that Lutherans believe Christ is physically present in the Host and Cup. Today, some Lutherans handle the sacrament in a way that would suggest a lax application of the Real Presence while others reserve the unconsumed holy elements.

Just a question; how do Catholics deal with the sacrament being spilled? The purificators [linen cloth] absorbs the Holy Blood for example.

 

[JonNC]

I can’t recall the exact information but it is my understanding that Luther or the early Lutherans cited an example of wine being accidentally spilled at the altar rail. The action was to even shave the wood in order to reverently pick up the Blood of Christ. The fact is that Lutherans believe Christ is physically present in the Host and Cup. Today, some Lutherans handle the sacrament in a way that would suggest a lax application of the Real Presence while others reserve the unconsumed holy elements.

Just a question; how do Catholics deal with the sacrament being spilled? The purificators [linen cloth] absorbs the Holy Blood for example.

There is also a primary source that reports that once when the chalice was spilled, Luther himself went on his hands and knees to lap up the spilled blood. A reverence to the real and substantial body and blood would be well learned among some Lutherans today.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

There is also a primary source that reports that once when the chalice was spilled, Luther himself went on his hands and knees to lap up the spilled blood. A reverence to the real and substantial body and blood would be well learned among some Lutherans today.

Jon

His reverence was probably well ingrained in him from his days as a Catholic.
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

His reverence was probably well ingrained in him from his days as a Catholic.
Mary.

As should ours. However, I wonder how many modern Catholic priests would act in such a way.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Would the LCMS Lutherans feel this blurb from Wiki is correct?

Sacramental Union and the Eucharist[edit source]

Regarding the Eucharist, the LCMS rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the Reformed teaching that the true body and blood of Christ are not consumed with the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist. Rather, it believes in the doctrine of the sacramental union, Real Presence, that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine. Or, as the Smalcald Articles express this mystery: “Of the Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and wine in the Supper are Christ’s true body and blood.”[11] It is occasionally reported that the LCMS and other Lutherans teach the doctrine of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is generally rejected by Lutherans and is explicitly rejected by the LCMS as an attempt to define the holy mystery of Christ’s presence.[12]

Wikipedia
I know Wiki is never a great source but it’s short and to the point in this case which I like.

 

[JonNC]

Would the LCMS Lutherans feel this blurb from Wiki is correct?

Sacramental Union and the Eucharist[edit source]

Regarding the Eucharist, the LCMS rejects the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the Reformed teaching that the true body and blood of Christ are not consumed with the consecrated bread and wine in the Eucharist. Rather, it believes in the doctrine of the sacramental union, Real Presence, that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present “in, with, and under” the elements of bread and wine. Or, as the Smalcald Articles express this mystery: “Of the Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and wine in the Supper are Christ’s true body and blood.”[11] It is occasionally reported that the LCMS and other Lutherans teach the doctrine of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is generally rejected by Lutherans and is explicitly rejected by the LCMS as an attempt to define the holy mystery of Christ’s presence.[12]

Wikipedia
I know Wiki is never a great source but it’s short and to the point in this case which I like.

I would think the LCMS would consider it spot on.
If one goes through the latter documents in the Book of Concord, where we see set out the sacramental union, it is almost always prefaced, or further described as Luther does in Smalcald, “Of the Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and wine in the Supper are Christ’s true body and blood.” At the end of the day, the Lutheran teaching is as Christ tells us: This [bread] IS my body, given for you. This [wine] IS my blood, shed for you for the remission of sins. The sacramental union is intended to express this fact.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I would think the LCMS would consider it spot on.
If one goes through the latter documents in the Book of Concord, where we see set out the sacramental union, it is almost always prefaced, or further described as Luther does in Smalcald, “Of the Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and wine in the Supper are Christ’s true body and blood.” At the end of the day, the Lutheran teaching is as Christ tells us: This [bread] IS my body, given for you. This [wine] IS my blood, shed for you for the remission of sins. The sacramental union is intended to express this fact.

Jon

Seemed that way to me!
That save you time editing it, Jon
Mary.

 

[manualman]

Just a question; how do Catholics deal with the sacrament being spilled? The purificators [linen cloth] absorbs the Holy Blood for example.

Good question and one that has both an official answer and real world examples that don’t always match up. Catholic theology understands the host to be the body and blood of Christ after consecration and that this remains so for as long as the host or the blood retain the sensory appearance (accidents) of bread and wine. Once the host or precious blood break down to the point of no longer retaining the appearance of bread and wine, the Real Presence is no longer present.

This principle guides catholic reverence in many ways. Say, for example, that a communicant receives the host but is struck by nausea and vomits before swallowing. What the priest is supposed to do (since he clearly can’t eat it!) is to retrieve the host, immerse it in a container of water and keep it in the tabernacle until it dissolves. Then it can be disposed of in a special sink called a sacrarium (used only for sacred vessel washing and the pipes lead straight to the soil under the church.

Purificators are similarly rinsed in the sacrarium so that any tiny remaining traces of the precious blood are so diluted as to no longer have the sensory appearance of wine.

The chalice is rinsed with water after communion and the priest drinks that water. Any tiny trace left after that no longer has the appearance of wine…

You get the idea. Sadly, there are catholics ignorant enough to do horrible things like dump the leftover precious blood from the chalice into the sacrarium directly. But this is not what the rubrics call for. We try to be consistent in our actions with what we believe.

I’m not sure on the question of a chalice being spilled, but I suspect it’s similar to the host. Purificators are used to soak it up and placed in a container of water (heavily diluted) until the water no longer has the appearance of wine. Then to the sacrarium.

 

[GKC]

Good question and one that has both an official answer and real world examples that don’t always match up. Catholic theology understands the host to be the body and blood of Christ after consecration and that this remains so for as long as the host or the blood retain the sensory appearance (accidents) of bread and wine. Once the host or precious blood break down to the point of no longer retaining the appearance of bread and wine, the Real Presence is no longer present.

This principle guides catholic reverence in many ways. Say, for example, that a communicant receives the host but is struck by nausea and vomits before swallowing. What the priest is supposed to do (since he clearly can’t eat it!) is to retrieve the host, immerse it in a container of water and keep it in the tabernacle until it dissolves. Then it can be disposed of in a special sink called a sacrarium (used only for sacred vessel washing and the pipes lead straight to the soil under the church.

Purificators are similarly rinsed in the sacrarium so that any tiny remaining traces of the precious blood are so diluted as to no longer have the sensory appearance of wine.

The chalice is rinsed with water after communion and the priest drinks that water. Any tiny trace left after that no longer has the appearance of wine…

You get the idea. Sadly, there are catholics ignorant enough to do horrible things like dump the leftover precious blood from the chalice into the sacrarium directly. But this is not what the rubrics call for. We try to be consistent in our actions with what we believe.

I’m not sure on the question of a chalice being spilled, but I suspect it’s similar to the host. Purificators are used to soak it up and placed in a container of water (heavily diluted) until the water no longer has the appearance of wine. Then to the sacrarium.

Basically, the same with us, on these points. Holy water would be used, to the extent possible. I’ve seen spilt Blood, wiped with a purificator dipped in holy water, for example. We’d refer to the basin as the piscina, the drain from it to the consecrated ground as the sacrarium. Minor details, the same point. Body and Blood.

GKC

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Basically, the same with us, on these points. Holy water would be used, to the extent possible. I’ve seen spilt Blood, wiped with a purificator dipped in holy water, for example. We’d refer to the basin as the piscina, the drain from it to the consecrated ground as the sacrarium. Minor details, the same point. Body and Blood.

GKC

That seems to be what Lutherans also do. The piscina is used for the consecrated wine; the host is reserved. But my hunch is that the purificators are not treated with holy water but merely tossed into the laundry.

Ablution at the altar is the norm in evangelical catholic parishes.

 

[GKC]

That seems to be what Lutherans also do. The piscina is used for the consecrated wine; the host is reserved. But my hunch is that the purificators are not treated with holy water but merely tossed into the laundry.

Ablution at the altar is the norm in evangelical catholic parishes.

Eventually, washed, yes. My wife used to take the purificators home for that. But if the Blood had been spilled, and needed blotting, or to be removed quickly from the fair linen or the Body needed to be placed in water, holy water, if possible. If not, not.

GKC

 

[manualman]

Indeed a far cry from my evangelical friends who, when their congregation has what they call a communion service it includes hundreds of tiny individual plastic cups filled with grape juice - that all end up unwashed in the dumpster out back afterwards. Not so horrifying to me since I know they really ARE little plastic cups of grape juice, but they can’t figure out why I can’t partake with them. Go figure.

 

[MaryT777]

Indeed a far cry from my evangelical friends who, when their congregation has what they call a communion service it includes hundreds of tiny individual plastic cups filled with grape juice - that all end up unwashed in the dumpster out back afterwards. Not so horrifying to me since I know they really ARE little plastic cups of grape juice, but they can’t figure out why I can’t partake with them. Go figure.

My friend is in such a Congregation and they participate in the symbolic Lord’s Supper as they believe it is only like 3x a year. It seems symbolic Lord’s Supper lends itself to infrequent Communion as well for in essence it seems you could do that at home.
Mary.

 

[GKC]

Indeed a far cry from my evangelical friends who, when their congregation has what they call a communion service it includes hundreds of tiny individual plastic cups filled with grape juice - that all end up unwashed in the dumpster out back afterwards. Not so horrifying to me since I know they really ARE little plastic cups of grape juice, but they can’t figure out why I can’t partake with them. Go figure.

I can’t do it either. And I was raised Baptist.

GKC

 

[ProVobis]

At the end of the day, the Lutheran teaching is as Christ tells us: This [bread] IS my body, given for you. This [wine] IS my blood, shed for you for the remission of sins.

The Latin and Greek provide a different reference for the demonstrative “this”. I don’t know if he did or not, but if Luther had changed the formula to “Haec est enim corpus meum” instead of “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” then the demonstrative “this” would have clearly referred to “panem” or “bread.” In the English, and perhaps the German too, the distinction is lost and we’ll argue forever because of the ambiguity of “this.” IMO consubstantiation is easier to believe as we physically envision the bread as the body and it intuitively makes more sense that way. It is difficult to see the bread only as an accident at that point, I’ll admit, but that’s what Catholics are supposed to believe. The Latin “hoc est…” and not “haec est…” is still the authoritative.

 

[ProVobis]

My friend is in such a Congregation and they participate in the symbolic Lord’s Supper as they believe it is only like 3x a year. It seems symbolic Lord’s Supper lends itself to infrequent Communion as well for in essence it seems you could do that at home.
Mary.

The Polish do it during Christmas when they exchange the opłatki.

 

[manualman]

The Polish do it during Christmas when they exchange the opłatki.

Maybe the wink means your kidding, but as a certified -ski myself, I can tell you that Polish people don’t confuse oplatki for the Eucharist. Even if the accidents are rather similar!

 

[MaryT777]

Maybe the wink means your kidding, but as a certified -ski myself, I can tell you that Polish people don’t confuse oplatki for the Eucharist. Even if the accidents are rather similar!

How come I have never heard of oplatki? Am I the only one out of the loop; I’m Irish though
Mary
I imagine I’m not the only one and a lurker or two joins me in my ignorance of this.
Can someone share with me more about it?