Difference between Catholic/Lutheran communion?

[steido01]

When speaking of the Lutheran teaching, I personally tend to borrow the “in, with, and under” phrase common in Lutheran texts rather than claim for them the term consubstantiation to which they are averted, even if I think the etymology bears some accuracy.

I appreciate your deference to Lutheran texts and claims on this topic. It’s always best to allow a given group to define and describe its own beliefs rather than attach a moniker that carries other meanings, connotations or implications.

 

[steido01]

Jon or Don…
would you say there is a substantial difference between the understanding between Catholics and Lutherans on Holy Communion or not from your point of view.

• In that we both truly profess the Real Presence of our Lord in the Sacrament, no.
• In that Lutherans do not describe the transformation as anything more than a mystery, and that Roman Catholics understand the transformation as Transubstantiation, yes.

Regrettably, and correctly, these differences are church-dividing. Lutherans and Roman Catholics should observe each other’s close communion practices and should not share the Eucharist under normal circumstances. Let us continue to pray for unity.

 

[MaryT777]

What is mean by the phrase ," in, with, and under", from Herman Sasse:

Jon

Thanks for the Quote Jon, I flipped through Herman Sasse’s book but it was too much for me on the real presence. It seems like a lot of explanation to me. I gave it to a LCMS pastor though who probably understood it better. It was pretty deep and heavy theologically speaking.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

• In that we both truly profess the Real Presence of our Lord in the Sacrament, no.
• In that Lutherans do not describe the transformation as anything more than a mystery, and that Roman Catholics understand the transformation as Transubstantiation, yes.

Regrettably, and correctly, these differences are church-dividing. Lutherans and Roman Catholics should observe each other’s close communion practices and should not share the Eucharist under normal circumstances. Let us continue to pray for unity.

That’s my understanding as well.
I think it’s important to note there are still grave differences in Holy Communion.
Mary.

 

[JonNC]

.

Jon or Don…
would you say there is a substantial difference between the understanding between Catholics and Lutherans on Holy Communion or not from your point of view.

I would agree with Don, with the exception that I do not believe that our differing expressions of the doctrine of the real presence are necessarily church dividing, as I think some of the dialogue has pointed to a greater convergence than in the past. I think our understandings of the mass as sacrifice is a bigger issue.

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

I would agree with Don, with the exception that I do not believe that our differing expressions of the doctrine of the real presence are necessarily church dividing, as I think some of the dialogue has pointed to a greater convergence than in the past. I think our understandings of the mass as sacrifice is a bigger issue.

Jon

Yes, The Mass as a sacrifice will be a big hurdle.

 

[Aramis]

But “bread is my Body” is not consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is more likely bread mixed with body.

Jon

“In, with and under” is Consubstantiation.

[Newadvent.org - Catholic Encyclopedia entry]
Consubstantiation

This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called “Impanation”, a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation.

Sacramental union is within the Catholic Church’s long-held definition of consubstantiation.

Comparing to the Wittenburg declaration as quoth in Wikipedia:
For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated.[5]

Does it deny transubstantiation? Yes.
Does it claim to hold the real presence? Yes.

It’s consubstantiation, under another name.

 

[Erich]

Lutherans and Roman Catholics should observe each other’s close communion practices and should not share the Eucharist under normal circumstances.

In another thread, I mentioned that Lutherans disagree even among themselves about what Scripture is saying regarding marriage and holy orders. Turns out, they also appear to disagree even among themselves about what Scripture is saying regarding reception of communion. ELCA, LCMS, and NALC practice open communion, and LCMS and WELS practice closed/close communion (not sure what the difference is, but I’m told there is one), i.e. there are, apparently, different Lutheran interpretations of 1 Cor 1:10 and 1 Cor 11:27-29.

 

[Erich]

It’s always best to allow a given group to define and describe its own beliefs rather than attach a moniker that carries other meanings, connotations or implications.

You mean, like describing yourself as an Evangelical Catholic?

From the April 1993 issue of This Rock (emphases mine):

Less than a century after Christ’s death Ignatius, the great martyr-bishop of Antioch, wrote a letter to the people of Smyrna in which the combination “the Catholic Church” occurs for the first time. His words are: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the Catholic Church.” By the beginning of the third century the meaning of the term “Catholic” as applied to the Church had become clearly established. It was used technically to imply sound doctrine as opposed to schism.

Thus Clement of Alexandria wrote, “We say that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith.” From quotations like this it is easy to see how “Catholic” became the proper name of the true Church founded by Christ.

There are two significant passages in the Catechetical Discourses of Cyril of Jerusalem, composed about the year 347. In the first he gives some advice to travelers: “If ever thou art staying in any city, ask not simply where the Lord’s house is - for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord - not merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the special name of the holy body the mother of us all.” Writing of the Creed he tells us, “Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other.”

Augustine uses the word “Catholic” as a synonym for the Church 240 times. The occasion was mainly the Donatist heresy. Against its errors the mark of universality was particularly emphasized. Note what Augustine wrote: “Whether they wish or no, heretics have to call the Catholic Church Catholic.”

In another place he put down something which is applicable today. “Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet, if anyone ask where is the Catholic place of worship, none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle.” Ask a London policeman for the Catholic Church, and he will direct you to Westminster Cathedral, not to St. Paul’s.

The word “Catholic” is, therefore, the proper name of that one, visible, organized Church founded by Jesus Christ. It is the Church we read about in the Acts of the Apostles, where it is described as having its head, its bishops, its priests, its deacons, its sacraments, its doctrines, its authority, its unity, and its disciples.

…

It would have been obvious to any of the saints we have mentioned that a church different from theirs could not rightly be called the Catholic Church. But how could a church be different from the Catholic Church?

The difference would have to be in essentials. For example, if a church professed doctrines different from those of the Catholic Church, it could not be the Catholic Church. If a church’s essential acts of worship were different from those of the Catholic Church, it could not be the Catholic Church. If the authority acknowledged by a church were not the same as the authority of the Catholic Church, that church could not be the Catholic Church.

Over time bodies broke off from the Catholic Church because they did not agree with its beliefs, or did not worship as it did, or would not recognize its authority. They became new and different churches. They ceased to be the Catholic Church.

At different times men started new churches from scratch. They were not the same as the Church Jesus Christ had founded. They were in opposition to it. His Church was, as we have seen, the Catholic Church; those new, man-made churches were not the Catholic Church.

 

[steido01]

You mean, like describing yourself as an Evangelical Catholic?

From the April 1993 issue of This Rock (emphases mine):

Your use of italics wrongly differentiates between the words. I am clear to call myself an Evangelical Catholic, and if I refer to myself as catholic without the “Evangelical” modifier, it is correctly lowercased so as not to cause confusion with those in communion with Rome (The church catholic is not necessarily synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church). Also, “Evangelical Catholic” is not my, nor even a modern invention. It is what Lutherans have always called themselves - “Lutheran” was originally a derogatory term that was pressed onto us by the Roman Catholic church.

You can come visit my catholic church anytime.

 

[steido01]

… LCMS and WELS practice closed/close communion (not sure what the difference is, but I’m told there is one), i.e. there are, apparently, different Lutheran interpretations of 1 Cor 1:10 and 1 Cor 11:27-29.

Closed communion means that only baptized and confirmed members of that church/church body may commune.

Close communion means that individuals from other church bodies may commune if they are baptized, have undergone proper instruction regarding the Eucharist and share in faith and practice (this typically requires prior consent of the priest).

 

[steido01]

I would agree with Don, with the exception that I do not believe that our differing expressions of the doctrine of the real presence are necessarily church dividing, as I think some of the dialogue has pointed to a greater convergence than in the past. I think our understandings of the mass as sacrifice is a bigger issue.

Jon

That’s fair. And probably more correct than what I said. The Pope Emeritus’ words in particular are evidence of that. There are other issues that divide our communions.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thank you, JohnNC, for providing the source of the Ratzinger quotation. I still assume that he does not intend to investigate the question of validity as we understand it, but I do not have access to the book.

If I may weigh in on the subject of the Lutheran view of communion, I think it is disingenuous or at least not correct to say that Lutherans reject the doctrine only because they reject the Aristotelian terminology or becaus they think it explains too much of what is a mystery. I have been going through the relevant sections of the Formula of Concord and the authors explicitly reject transubstantiation not because they object to the terminology but because they object to it in principle. They are clear that they believe the bread to be both Christ’s body and bread, which contradicts transubstantiation and can righty be called consubstantiation (unless the Lutherans believe that Christ and bread are the same sunstance), even if the Lutherans find the terminology distasteful.

I don’t think its fair either to say that transubstantiation is rejected because it explains too much because the Lutherans give just as much explanation of the mystery. Transubstantiation only means that the bread becomes Christ’s body under the appearance of bread. This really seems to be the most plain sense of what Christ said, “this is my body.” However he does not affirm or deny that it isn’t also bread… In any case the FOC denies that it is only the appearance that remains and also seems to deny that Christ is present full and entire in both species (which is interesting).

I still do not feel like I have a firm understanding of everything the FOC says so I might like to post relevant passages for comment by the Lutherans here. There is a lot of misunderstanding about Lutheran teaching. My “Reformed” friend said R.C. Sproul explained the Lutheran teaching as being consubstantiation which holds that Christ is present in the bread like water in a sponge.

 

[JonNC]

One of the things ice learned here in my years at CAF is that it is always best to listen to what others say they believe, and accept that as what they believe.

The fact is that Lutherans reject consubstantiation, both in the term and the meaning. If you,take the time to read the links I’ve provided, you will see this to be the case.

Oddly enough, the definition of consubstantiation you provided below from Newadvent is precisely what we reject about consubstantiation.

Jon

“In, with and under” is Consubstantiation.

[Newadvent.org - Catholic Encyclopedia entry]
Consubstantiation

This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained. The most subtle theory is that, just as God the Son took to Himself a human body without in any way destroying its substance, so does He in the Blessed Sacrament assume the nature of bread. Hence the theory is also called “Impanation”, a term founded on the analogy of Incarnation.

Sacramental union is within the Catholic Church’s long-held definition of consubstantiation.

Comparing to the Wittenburg declaration as quoth in Wikipedia:
For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated.[5]

Does it deny transubstantiation? Yes.
Does it claim to hold the real presence? Yes.

It’s consubstantiation, under another name.

 

[JonNC]

=QNDNNDQDCE;11040603]Thank you, JohnNC, for providing the source of the Ratzinger quotation. I still assume that he does not intend to investigate the question of validity as we understand it, but I do not have access to the book.

Oh, I agree. I don’t think his comment is about the issue of validity, in terms of what currently divides us regarding succession. I think the US bishops were spot on about it, that from a Catholic POV, the issue of Lutheran orders is not an all or nothing situation. And Ratzinger is saying something akin to that.

If I may weigh in on the subject of the Lutheran view of communion, I think it is disingenuous or at least not correct to say that Lutherans reject the doctrine only because they reject the Aristotelian terminology or becaus they think it explains too much of what is a mystery. I have been going through the relevant sections of the Formula of Concord and the authors explicitly reject transubstantiation not because they object to the terminology but because they object to it in principle. They are clear that they believe the bread to be both Christ’s body and bread, which contradicts transubstantiation and can righty be called consubstantiation (unless the Lutherans believe that Christ and bread are the same sunstance), even if the Lutherans find the terminology distasteful.

Well, I would disagree. No where do the confessions make the statement that both bread and body co-exist in the bread. That is consubstantiation.

I don’t think its fair either to say that transubstantiation is rejected because it explains too much because the Lutherans give just as much explanation of the mystery. Transubstantiation only means that the bread becomes Christ’s body under the appearance of bread. This really seems to be the most plain sense of what Christ said, “this is my body.” However he does not affirm or deny that it isn’t also bread… In any case the FOC denies that it is only the appearance that remains and also seems to deny that Christ is present full and entire in both species (which is interesting).

Here is the key, ISTM. While Catholics speak of become, the Lutheran view is is. Luther makes the comment at one point that, after all, when we receive, we are receiving His true and substantial body and blood, God deals with the bread and wine as He wills.

The problem in all of this is the fact that Catholics think in terms of substance/ accident, while Lutherans do not, and the two modes of thought are very different. Recently, it seems, however, Lutheran and Catholic theologians seem to be breaking through this in dialogue statements.

I still do not feel like I have a firm understanding of everything the FOC says so I might like to post relevant passages for comment by the Lutherans here. There is a lot of misunderstanding about Lutheran teaching. My “Reformed” friend said R.C. Sproul explained the Lutheran teaching as being consubstantiation which holds that Christ is present in the bread like water in a sponge.

As I said, I think it’s difficult for both Lutherans and Catholics to cross over and try to understand the thought process of the other. For example, if you pinned me down, and I had to side either with Transubstantiation or consubstantiation, I would be inclined toward Transubstantiation.
As for Sproul and the Reformed, two thoughts which I hope are not too harsh;

1. as distasteful as his sponge analogy is, it better explains communion than the Reformed “real absence”.
2. to paraphrase Luther, before I would drink mere wine with the Reformed, I would drink real blood with the pope.

Jon

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you, JohnNC, for providing the source of the Ratzinger quotation. I still assume that he does not intend to investigate the question of validity as we understand it, but I do not have access to the book.

I may not be right on this, but whether one believes in transubstantiation or consubstantiation, this in itself does not affect the validity of the consecration. Does anyone know for sure?

 

[steido01]

Here is the key, ISTM. While Catholics speak of become, the Lutheran view is is. Luther makes the comment at one point that, after all, when we receive, we are receiving His true and substantial body and blood, God deals with the bread and wine as He wills.

Ah, memories of “Ist, ist, ist!” and all that good stuff from confirmation class!

The problem in all of this is the fact that Catholics think in terms of substance/ accident, while Lutherans do not, and the two modes of thought are very different…

As I said, I think it’s difficult for both Lutherans and Catholics to cross over and try to understand the thought process of the other. For example, if you pinned me down, and I had to side either with Transubstantiation or consubstantiation, I would be inclined toward Transubstantiation.
As for Sproul and the Reformed, two thoughts which I hope are not too harsh;

1. as distasteful as his sponge analogy is, it better explains communion than the Reformed “real absence”.
2. to paraphrase Luther, before I would drink mere wine with the Reformed, I would drink real blood with the pope.

This is my understanding as well.

Recently, it seems, however, Lutheran and Catholic theologians seem to be breaking through this in dialogue statements.

I don’t mean to seize on this sentence, but I’d like to focus on this for just one minute. I have a personal experience that I’d like to share -not to open a can of worms- but because I think it may help illustrate just how close Lutherans and Roman Catholic theologians are growing on this particular topic, and because I’d be hypocritical if I didn’t walkback my unfortunate statement about the Eucharist itself being a church-dividing point…

Some background: My previous job required some travel. I would often go weeks without worshiping at my home congregation. Usually, there would be an LCMS parish nearby where I could attend Divine Service and receive communion, but not always. The pastor at my home parish eventually asked why I wasn’t always in church on Sundays, and I told him about my situation.

This is where I must pause and note that the solution worked out with my pastor was a matter of pastoral discretion specific to me at that time, and is certainly not the norm in the LCMS. After some discussion, he noted that it would be acceptable for me to receive communion at a non-LCMS altar, provided that: 1) That church profess the Real Presence and not share fellowship with any church bodies that do not, 2) I received permission from the church’s pastor beforehand, and 3) I notified my pastor afterward.

One time, I traveled to an area without a Lutheran church. With my travel schedule, it had been over a month since I last received communion. The only church in the area that professed the Real Presence was Roman Catholic. I explained my situation to the priest, and he asked me several questions about what I believed. I explained precisely what I had been taught in confirmation, and he invited me to partake in the Eucharist. I ended up not taking communion (I missed much of Mass for an unrelated reason ), but the underlying point is that it may sometimes be permissible, albeit under admittedly extraordinary circumstances, for individual Lutherans and Roman Catholics to share communion. While I cannot stress enough that my situation was an example of “the exception,” and certainly not “the rule” (Please do not take me for an advocate of corporate Open Communion!), I think it is helpful in understanding that, on the singular issue of the Eucharist, Lutherans and Roman Catholics are, indeed, closer than our often-mischaracterized explanations of the Sacrament would paint us to be. Inter-communion, even in exceptional cases, could not otherwise take place.

 

[Erich]

Your use of italics wrongly differentiates between the words. I am clear to call myself an Evangelical Catholic, and if I refer to myself as catholic without the “Evangelical” modifier, it is correctly lowercased so as not to cause confusion with those in communion with Rome (The church catholic is not necessarily synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church). Also, “Evangelical Catholic” is not my, nor even a modern invention. It is what Lutherans have always called themselves - “Lutheran” was originally a derogatory term that was pressed onto us by the Roman Catholic church.

Actually, the term “Roman Catholic Church” was (along with Roman, Romanist, Romanism, etc.) itself originally a perjorative term in Protestant anti-Catholic circles (particularly among Anglicans, originally). The Nicene Creed says “we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” The Apostle’s Creed says “I believe in . . . the holy Catholic Church.” Neither uses the terminology of Roman Catholic Church. True, some Catholics refer to themselves as* Roman Catholic, *but this isn’t an absolute linguistic matter.

I think the proper usage with regard to Eastern and Western Catholics (when that distinction is made) is
a) Latin Rite Catholics (or, Western Rite Catholics). E.g., the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1579, uses the term Latin Church, with reference to the requirement of priestly celibacy.
b) Eastern Catholics (or, Byzantine Catholics or Eastern Rite Catholics).
Some Eastern Catholics object to being called Roman Catholic at least in part because they feel it implies Latin Rite Catholic, whereas they are of the Eastern Rites.

Roman Catholic is often used in a way that presupposes that there are other Catholics, such as Anglo-Catholics, or as many Orthodox use it: Orthodox Catholics. This buys into the Anglican branch theory or Via Media, which we reject. Others can be part of that one Church in some fashion (as Vatican II stressed), but there can’t be more than one.

You can come visit my catholic church anytime.

But I’m probably likely to find it only if I look in the phone book (or Google) for a Lutheran church

Again, from the April 1993 issue of This Rock (emphases mine):

Augustine uses the word “Catholic” as a synonym for the Church 240 times. The occasion was mainly the Donatist heresy. Against its errors the mark of universality was particularly emphasized. Note what Augustine wrote: “Whether they wish or no, heretics have to call the Catholic Church Catholic.”

In another place he put down something which is applicable today. “Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet, if anyone ask where is the Catholic place of worship, none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle.” Ask a London policeman for the Catholic Church, and he will direct you to Westminster Cathedral, not to St. Paul’s.

The word “Catholic” is, therefore, the proper name of that one, visible, organized Church founded by Jesus Christ. It is the Church we read about in the Acts of the Apostles, where it is described as having its head, its bishops, its priests, its deacons, its sacraments, its doctrines, its authority, its unity, and its disciples.

 

[steido01]

We could fill five hundred threads with a discussion on catholicity of non-Roman churches. I suspect we would eventually find Rome and Wittenberg to mostly agree, but also disagree. If you want to start a new thread, I’ll meet you there. But with respect to the OP, I’ll respond just briefly.

The Nicene Creed says “we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” The Apostle’s Creed says “I believe in . . . the holy Catholic Church.” Neither uses the terminology of Roman Catholic Church.

And the Athanasian Creed says that “anyone who wishes to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith.” If your point is that the creeds define what is catholic, I agree. My church professes all three of the Ecumenical Creeds. We are catholic.

Roman Catholic is often used in a way that presupposes that there are other Catholics, such as Anglo-Catholics, or as many Orthodox use it: Orthodox Catholics.

Yup.

This buys into the Anglican branch theory

Not necessarily.

which we reject.

That’s fine by me, as I understand it.

Others can be part of that one Church in some fashion (as Vatican II stressed), but there can’t be more than one.

Thanks, glad to have Rome’s permission. You are correct; there is One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church.

But I’m probably likely to find it only if I look in the phone book (or Google) for a Lutheran church

As you’ve noted, this isn’t an absolute linguistic matter. Languages and meanings of words change over time and colloquialisms of today shouldn’t alter meaning. My Lutheran church is catholic, but for the sake of easy identification and understanding, we call ourselves by the name we are commonly known.

 

[ProVobis]

]The Nicene Creed says “we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” The Apostle’s Creed says “I believe in . . . the holy Catholic Church.”

As a side note, both start with “Credo” which is first person singular. This was recently “fixed” in the English Mass.