Consubstantiation/Lutherans

[tdgesq]

What I find puzzling is that some posters exclaim positions that are no longer considered relevant. As others have posted, the Lutheran/ Catholic Dialogue concluded long ago that the issue of the Real Presence unites us not divides us. I understand academic discussions on the difference between transubstantiation, consubstantiation and sacramental unity as an interesting topic of the nuances of sacramental theology.

Aside from the Orthodox, Lutherans most closely resemble Catholics in eucharistic theology and practice. That is not the case among the vast majority of other Christians.

O Sacrament most holy, O Sacrament divine, All praise and all thanksgiving be every moment Thine!

Yet differences still exist: The Eucharist: A Lutheran-Roman Catholic Statement

 

[benjohnson]

If this is true, then I don’t see how Lutherans can reject transubstantiation on the grounds listed above. It would be consistent to assert that the RCC shouldn’t teach transubstantiation as what actually happens to the elements of bread and wine because we cannot know - other than the stipulation that it is Christ’s body and blood. It does not preclude the possibility though that transubstantiation is what actually occurs.

I agree - reading parts about Transubstantiona in the Augsburg Confession usually leaves me wondering what we Lutherans are objecting to exactly.

As I understand the objections in the Augsburg Confessions as read by Lutheran theologians - it’s the ‘change’ as defined in Transubstantiation we object to. We have to simply say it is the Real Presence.

I think from a modern viewpoint - this argument can seem rather silly. Obviously bread and wine are brought to the alter, and at some point we have the Real Presence. Therefore a change must have occurred. But the argument in the Augsburg Confessions indicates otherwise - this is the Body and Blood of Christ as it always is, was, and shall be.

I’ve been told that the translation in English is rather weak in this area - the Latin is rumored to be much more evident.

 

[JonNC]

=tdgesq;11095101]Right. It is natural that many RC’s introduction to Lutheran Eucharistic theology comes through the study of transubstantiation and the objections to it; at which point we try to identify the competing belief. If I understand you correctly below though, then it seems some of these objections are unwarranted.

Let’s see.

From everything I’ve read in this thread (especially the very informative article provided by benjohnson, thank you) there isn’t any positive attempt made by Lutherans to explain how the elements of bread and wine are also the body and blood of Christ, other than to state that there is a sacramental union between them; which I understand goes no further than what Christ declares at the Last Supper. The most we can say, or so the argument goes, is that we can’t know what happens. My only criticism is that this seems inconsistent with the objections to transubstantiation.

Consider these:

452.5 – SA III.Sacrament of the Altar.5 – “As for transubstantiation, we have no regard for the subtle sophistry of those who teach that bread and wine surrender or lose their natural substance and retain only the appearance and shape of bread without any longer being real bread, for that bread is and remains there agrees better with Scriptures, as St. Paul himself states, ‘The bread which we break’ (I Cor. 10:16), and again, ‘Let a man so eat of the bread’ (I Cor. 11:28). Tappert, 311.

983.35 – FC SD VII.35 – “In addition to the words of Christ and of St. Paul (the bread in the Lord’s Supper, ‘is true body of Christ’ or a ‘participation in the body of Christ’), we at times also use the formulas ‘under the bread, with the bread, in the bread.’ We do this to reject the papistic transubstantiation and to indicate the sacramental union between the untransformed substance of the bread and the body of Christ.” Tappert, 575.

The objections here aren’t that the RCC is wrong because it “can’t know what happens” when the bread and wine are consecrated. Instead, the metaphysical theory of transubstantiation is challenged by the Lutherans’ own metaphysical commitments, ie. the substance of the bread remains untransformed.

If this is true, then I don’t see how Lutherans can reject transubstantiation on the grounds listed above. It would be consistent to assert that the RCC shouldn’t teach transubstantiation as what actually happens to the elements of bread and wine because we cannot know - other than the stipulation that it is Christ’s body and blood. It does not preclude the possibility though that transubstantiation is what actually occurs.

I’m not convinced that Luther in the Smalcald, or even the second generation reformers in the Formula were postulating their own metaphysics. What they do is site St. Paul’s usage of bread and body somewhat interchangeably. Further, Luther says previous to the part you quote that “Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ”. Obviously, for this to be the case, some kind of change (you used the word transformation) takes place. All we are saying is we do not know how that happens. It is a mystery.

Jon

 

[cmodrmac]

The evangelical Lutheran Church in the USA is in full communion with the Episcopal Church in the USA-There is even a joint Lutheran / Episcopal Parish in the USA

As all know there ae a variety of beliefs regarding the Eucharist in the Anglican communion -( as of now ECUSA is still in ) -I will research how the 2 denominations dealt with this in their talks on communion -given that they share ministers there must be some agreement

 

[Vicki_Leigh]

I used to be LCMS. When I joined, I was taught that the bread and wine remained, and that Christ’s body and blood joined those substances. After communion, the bread and wine were treated as if Christ had left them. It was confusing for me.

 

[MaryT777]

I used to be LCMS. When I joined, I was taught that the bread and wine remained, and that Christ’s body and blood joined those substances. After communion, the bread and wine were treated as if Christ had left them. It was confusing for me.

It seems as if a lot of time and energy is spent on INSISTING the LCMS does not
attempt to explain this miracle of real presence; yet then you see words like “in with and under” and read books like Herman Sasse devoted entirely to the real presence and in essence it’s too much trying to explain we don’t explain.

Thus it makes no sense to me.
Mary.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The evangelical Lutheran Church in the USA is in full communion with the Episcopal Church in the USA-There is even a joint Lutheran / Episcopal Parish in the USA

As all know there ae a variety of beliefs regarding the Eucharist in the Anglican communion -( as of now ECUSA is still in ) -I will research how the 2 denominations dealt with this in their talks on communion -given that they share ministers there must be some agreement

The continuing union of Lutherans and Anglicans only strengthens our Catholic identity. The Eucharistic practices in both Communions is the strong belief in the Real Presence. Lutheran Confessions and Anglican practice reaffirm the RP of Christ in the Mass.

Ecumenical growth allows some difference of opinion as a way for the united Church to recover full catholicity including the adoration of Christ holy Body and Blood at the consecration.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The continuing union of Lutherans and Anglicans only strengthens our Catholic identity. The Eucharistic practices in both Communions is the strong belief in the Real Presence. Lutheran Confessions and Anglican practice reaffirm the RP of Christ in the Mass.

Ecumenical growth allows some difference of opinion as a way for the united Church to recover full catholicity including the adoration of Christ holy Body and Blood at the consecration.

What is your perspective on full union with the Catholic Church?

 

[andrewstx]

I agree - reading parts about Transubstantiona in the Augsburg Confession usually leaves me wondering what we Lutherans are objecting to exactly.

As I understand the objections in the Augsburg Confessions as read by Lutheran theologians - it’s the ‘change’ as defined in Transubstantiation we object to. We have to simply say it is the Real Presence.

I think from a modern viewpoint - this argument can seem rather silly. Obviously bread and wine are brought to the alter, and at some point we have the Real Presence. Therefore a change must have occurred. But the argument in the Augsburg Confessions indicates otherwise - this is the Body and Blood of Christ as it always is, was, and shall be.

I’ve been told that the translation in English is rather weak in this area - the Latin is rumored to be much more evident.

But do not the majority of Lutherans believe it is only a temporary presence, and perhaps receptionism?

I get that idea based on two facts.

Lutherans do not reserve the Sacrament for the ill and those not present at the time. Lutherans will after the Communion service will put consecrated hosts back in the box with unconsecrated hosts. And the blood/wine either goes down the drain into the sewer or back in the bottle.

 

[benjohnson]

Thus it makes no sense to me.
Mary.

That there are poor theologians and pastors who come up short in the LCMS there can be no doubt.

 

[andrewstx]

The evangelical Lutheran Church in the USA is in full communion with the Episcopal Church in the USA-There is even a joint Lutheran / Episcopal Parish in the USA

As all know there ae a variety of beliefs regarding the Eucharist in the Anglican communion -( as of now ECUSA is still in ) -I will research how the 2 denominations dealt with this in their talks on communion -given that they share ministers there must be some agreement

We used to have a poster who posted as an Episcoluth who was a member of such a parish in the PNW. I haven’t seen her in a while.

 

[benjohnson]

Lutherans do not reserve the Sacrament for the ill and those not present at the time. Lutherans will after the Communion service will put consecrated hosts back in the box with unconsecrated hosts. And the blood/wine either goes down the drain into the sewer or back in the bottle.

Feel free to correct them! And feel free to be vocal for they are not doing as Lutherans should.

With few exceptions, Lutherans should treat the Eucharist as Catholics!

In our church, the sacraments are reserved for the Pastor to administer to the sick. We have a piscina and sacrarium and treat the Body and Blood with respect. If spilled, we dilute with a happy heart so that the poor soul who spilled doesn’t feel trepidation afterwards.

 

[andrewstx]

Feel free to correct them! And feel free to be vocal for they are not doing as Lutherans should.

With few exceptions, Lutherans should treat the Eucharist as Catholics!

In our church, the sacraments are reserved for the Pastor to administer to the sick. We have a piscina and sacrarium and treat the Body and Blood with respect. If spilled, we dilute with a happy heart so that the poor soul who spilled doesn’t feel trepidation afterwards.

That is a great relief to read, and takes a load off my mind Ben.

 

[Peter_J]

In our church, the sacraments are reserved for the Pastor to administer to the sick.

Question: do you reserved the Precious Body only (like Roman Catholics) or the Precious Blood as well (like Orthodox)?

 

[EvangelCatholic]

But do not the majority of Lutherans believe it is only a temporary presence, and perhaps receptionism?

I get that idea based on two facts.

Lutherans do not reserve the Sacrament for the ill and those not present at the time. Lutherans will after the Communion service will put consecrated hosts back in the box with unconsecrated hosts. And the blood/wine either goes down the drain into the sewer or back in the bottle.

I have heard that parishes may store the consecrated and consecrated elements together; that somehow Christ disappears after holy Communion. This is totally against Lutheran theology, however. Lutheran parishes I am familiar with reserve the unused Host in a ambry, tabernacle either near the altar or in the sacristy. If the holy Blood is not consumed by communicants or altar servers, the altar guild pour the elements down a piscina or on the ground outside the church. The holy Elements are taken to the sick or shut-ins after Mass by either the pastor or eucharistic ministers.

If I ever came across a Lutheran parish disposing of the holy Blood down a drain, I would immediately speak to the pastor or even the bishop. That is why I am very uncomfortable with individual glasses. These poor Lutheran practices seem to be limited to America and not the Lutherans in Europe.

 

[benjohnson]

Question: do you reserved the Precious Body only (like Roman Catholics) or the Precious Blood as well (like Orthodox)?

We try not to have any remainder - but the small sets for the sick and shut-in have bottles for the Blood.

 

[andrewstx]

Question: do you reserved the Precious Body only (like Roman Catholics) or the Precious Blood as well (like Orthodox)?

I am not Ben, but I am Orthodox. We reserve only the Lamb (host) which is placed in unconsecrated wine for the liturgy of the Presanctified, and for the ill.

 

[onenow1]

Hi.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrence of me.”
20 And likewise the cup after supper, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood

Jesus said the above to His new priests the apostles. I really think it is this simple and so in one Corinthians St.Paul reinforces the last supper,with the same words…

1 Corinthians 11: 23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it in remembrence of me”

God Bless All
One now1

ewtn.com/ewtn/bible/search_bible.asp#ixzz2bztJ38jC

 

[Peter_J]

I am not Ben, but I am Orthodox. We reserve only the Lamb (host) which is placed in unconsecrated wine for the liturgy of the Presanctified, and for the ill.

Do you never reserve the Precious Blood? I have heard that you reserve the two together (I heard that once during a tour of an Orthodox Church, and at least once online). I believe we Melkites do the same.

 

[steido01]

But do not the majority of Lutherans believe it is only a temporary presence, and perhaps receptionism?

:bigyikes: I would hope not! As others have said, if you find a Lutheran teaching this, please correct them and turn them toward their own Confessions!

I get that idea based on two facts.

Well, let’s take a looksee.

Lutherans do not reserve the Sacrament for the ill and those not present at the time.

This is not quite accurate. Lutherans typically do not reserve the Sacrament (some -perhaps many- do).

Lutherans who do not practice reservation of the Sacrament do not refrain from doing so because of any particular doctrine against it, but because they take very seriously Christ’s command to “Take, eat. Take, drink.” Christ doesn’t say anything about “Take, eat some now, and save some for later,” so in typical Lutheran fashion, they don’t put a comma where they understand God to have put a period. Instead, they simply avoid having any leftover altogether. Churches I’ve worshiped at have a simple practice - the elders count how many members are present so no more bread or wine than necessary is consecrated.

If a member is in the hospital or otherwise unable to make it to Divine Service, the pastor typically visits and consecrates the elements on-site, both so as not to subject His Body and Blood to being rather unceremoniously carted around all day as they visit shut-ins (and potentially spilled or dropped! ), and so that the consecration takes place in the presence of the communicant. This is thought to be more in line with Christ’s command, not to mention more pastoral (who doesn’t like a one-on-one visit from their pastor? ).

In short, the traditional Lutheran practice of not reserving the Sacrament is done totally out of reverence for His Body and Blood.

Lutherans will after the Communion service will put consecrated hosts back in the box with unconsecrated hosts. And the blood/wine either goes down the drain into the sewer or back in the bottle.

If I ever met such a person who claimed to be Lutheran, we would have words.

At churches where I’ve worshiped, any remaining Blood in the chalice is either consumed by the pastor or properly disposed, and anything remaining of His Body is either stored separately from the unconsecrated hosts or properly disposed. I know when my father’s congregation (he’s an LCMS pastor) was building a new church a few years ago, members made a particular point to add a piscina, which had been lacking from the original church (a terrible oversight of that hideous 1980’s bunker-church construction! ).

I typically steer clear of Wikis, but this actually explains Lutheran thought fairly well (be sure to read the footnotes, as well): lutheranwiki.org/How_Long_are_Christ%E2%80%99s_Body_and_Blood_Present_in_the_Consecrated_Bread_and_the_Wine_of_Communion%3F