Luther and the Eucharist compared to Christ and his incarnation

  • Thread starter Thread starter flightkid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

flightkid

Guest
What Luther argued was not that transubstantiation was wrong but that trying to explain how the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ is a human mistake. For Luther the mystery of the incarnation is tied directly into the mystery of how the Eucharistic bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. Luther in his 1528 treatise on the Lord’s Supper in fact says, “If you can explain how Christ is both fully God and man I will explain how the bread and wine are his body and blood.” For Luther, the elements at the table are both bread and Christ’s body.
Transubstantiation says that when the bread is revealed to be Christ’s body, the substance of bread is destroyed and we are left with Christ’s body; the same then is true of the wine. Luther’s incarnational understanding of the Eucharist could not confess this because when Christ took on humanity, his Godhood was not destroyed but co-existed within his being. Thus the bread and the wine co-exist with Christ’s very real physical body in the bread and wine. What transubstantiation calls an accident, that the bread and wine still look and taste like what they were before, Luther says they still are bread and wine but are also the body and blood of Christ.

Can we ask Catholics explain the difference of the Eucharist verse Luters unerstanding of the incarnation whn Christ took on humanity and both divine/human natures and why is it not the same under the breaking of the bread like we catholics believe in transubstantion? Why is Luthers view not right? It presents a good arguement…please shed some light.
 
“Thus the bread and the wine co-exist with Christ’s very real physical body in the bread and wine”

As I understand it the bread and wine co-exist with Christ in what is termed “Sacramental Form” - not His physical body as it exists in Heaven.
 
But I thought after consencration for Catholics there is no bread or wine left…its all accidents…right?
 
can anyone lutherans comment? Thank you for the post above…great articles in it!
 
flightkid said:
can anyone lutherans comment? Thank you for the post above…great articles in it!
Click to expand...
A thought. This is tied to the Christological concept of the Hyptostatic Union-- which, at its root, undergirds the doctrine of the Incarnation, and by extention the doctrine of the vicarious atonement.

Lutherans are not (according to our Confessions) really at odds with our Roman Catholic friends regarding the “what” of the Holy Eucharist. Lutherans refuse to define the “how,” beyond the action of the Holy Spirit working through His Word (in this case the words of institution) and the priest who speaks them in the office of the Holy Ministry established by Christ to do so. In this way, we follow the pattern more often found in the Eastern churches.

Our issue is not on the Real Presence of Christ… it’s more regarding the establishing of definitions and processes not found in Holy Scripture, regarding what is at base root a divine mystery. We receive the sacred mysteries, and do not try to explain them.

Peace be with you.
 
flightkid said:
can anyone lutherans comment?
Click to expand...
I’m a cradle Catholic married to a Lutheran Pastor. I guess for me this issue of consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation has been one of splitting hairs; one that smacks of Reformation and Counter Reformation posturing. My belief in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not really threatened by either of the two doctrines.

That said, do you have any specific questions or struggles with the two that you would like addressed? I’m not exactly sure what has you interested in the arguments between the two.
 
WorkerPriest said:
A thought. This is tied to the Christological concept of the Hyptostatic Union-- which, at its root, undergirds the doctrine of the Incarnation, and by extention the doctrine of the vicarious atonement.

Lutherans are not (according to our Confessions) really at odds with our Roman Catholic friends regarding the “what” of the Holy Eucharist. Lutherans refuse to define the “how,” beyond the action of the Holy Spirit working through His Word (in this case the words of institution) and the priest who speaks them in the office of the Holy Ministry established by Christ to do so. In this way, we follow the pattern more often found in the Eastern churches.

Our issue is not on the Real Presence of Christ… it’s more regarding the establishing of definitions and processes not found in Holy Scripture, regarding what is at base root a divine mystery. We receive the sacred mysteries, and do not try to explain them.

Peace be with you.
Click to expand...
St. Thomas Aquinas explains it quite clearly (though it still is a divine mystery). Lutherans do not believe in the perpetual true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Catholics believe that once consecrated the host is now the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity not just while existing as the subject, ie. being consumed, but always until the substance is destroyed. Con-substantion (the Luthern belief) is not the same as transubstantiation. Ordained Catholic Priests alone can turn what was substantially bread and wine into the REAL and TRUE Christ. That’s why we have tabernacles that Christ dwells in.

J.M.J.
 
The following argument against Luther’s idea of consubstantion appears in the article on “Eucharist” in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The Calvinists, therefore, are perfectly right when they resect the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation as a fiction, with no foundation in Scripture. For had Christ intended to assert the coexistence of His Body with the substance of the bread, He would not have expressed a simple identity between hoc and corpus by means of the copula est, but would have resorted to some such expression as: “This bread contains my body”, or, “In this bread is my body.” Had He desired to constitute bread the sacramental receptacle of His Body, He would have had to state this expressly, for neither from the nature of the case nor according to common parlance can a piece of bread be made to signify the receptacle of a human body. On the other hand, the synecdoche is plain in the case of the Chalice: “This is my blood”, i.e. the contents of the Chalice are my blood, and hence no longer wine.
 
flightkid said:
But I thought after consencration for Catholics there is no bread or wine left…its all accidents…right?
Click to expand...
Before: substance of bread and wine with appearance of bread and wine.
After: substance of body and blood with appearance of bread and wine.
Done: upon being unrecognizable as bread and wine.

Modern Catholic DictionarySUBSTANCE. A being whose essence requires that it exist in itself. It is an ens per se (a being by itself) or ens in se (a being in itself). It is commonly distinguished from an accident, whose essence is to exist in another, that is, in a substance. (Etym. Latin substantia, that which stands under, principle, foundation.)
Council of Trent,** Session 13, Canons***** Canon 1.*** If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, let him be anathema. Canon 2. If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema.
 
Fan_of_Trent said:
Ordained Catholic Priests alone can turn what was substantially bread and wine into the REAL and TRUE Christ. That’s why we have tabernacles that Christ dwells in.
Click to expand...
This is not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that every validly ordained priest can consecrate bread and wine, including priests of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, as well as the schismatic Catholic groups.
 
ConstantineTG said:
This is not what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that every validly ordained priest can consecrate bread and wine, including priests of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, as well as the schismatic Catholic groups.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And Rome would recognize as valid but illicit the consecrations done by Lutheran priests, who had the same episcopal oridination lines at the Easteran Churches… though Lutherans would understand such things, even when they have them, as secondary to the power of Christ’s Word and the Holy Spirit operating in the Sacrament.

Also of note to a previous responder, Lutheran doctrine is not con-substantiation. Unfortunately, that’s what non-Lutherans pejoritavely named the Lutheran position. Christ calls the bread of the Eucharist his Body. We believe Him. St. Paul calls the fellowship gathered around the Eucharist, a breaking of bread. We believe him.

There ends the Lutheran position.

To another point made above, Confessionally, many Lutherans believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist until the bread and wine is gone-- it is simply our practice, to consume all that is consecrated during the Mass, or retain what will be taken to shut ins. While it is true that most Lutherans do not venerate the Holy Eucharist outside the Mass, we do during the Mass.

Hope that clarifies a bit. Pax.
 
WorkerPriest,

Thank you for shedding light on this with charity, and gentleness. This is how we as christians should speak to each other when explaining the differences in catholicism and lutheranism. Thank you so much. God bless you and peace with u as well!

Flightkid
 
flightkid said:
Thank you for shedding light on this with charity, and gentleness. This is how we as christians should speak to each other when explaining the differences in catholicism and lutheranism. Thank you so much. God bless you and peace with u as well!
Click to expand...
It is my pleasure to be of service, and thank you for your charity. blessings be to you.
 
“And Rome would recognize as valid but illicit the consecrations done by Lutheran priests, who had the same episcopal oridination lines at the Easteran Churches”…

WorkerPriest…is there documentation or lineage of Lutheran Pastors having “holy orders” or the laying on of hands from an Eastern Cathp;oc Bishop? Any way you can share or show me some articles? Also my question is I thought Lutherans did not believe in needing the laying on hands for pastors to be able to consencrate the eucharist? Is that true?
 
The Catholic Church has given some instruction on this issue, specifically mentioning Lutheranism, in

XI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY, THE EUCHARIST: SOURCE AND SUMMIT OF THE LIFE AND MISSION OF THE CHURCH

vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20040528_lineamenta-xi-assembly_en.html
28. With this in mind, we should treat intercommunion with the required humility and patience. Instead of a kind of experimentation which sacrifices the greatness of the mystery of the Eucharist, reducing the Sacrament to a mere human instrument, the preferred choice is to defer, in common prayer and hope, to “respect the demands from its being the sacrament of communion in faith and in apostolic succession.”[101]
The Orthodox Churches and the ancient Eastern Churches share the same faith in the Eucharist, because they have true sacraments.[102] Therefore, in certain cases, Eucharistic communion is possible.[103] Nevertheless, what remains to be considered carefully is the relationship between Eucharistic hospitality and proselytism. Some Church communities of the Reformation, above all Lutherans, believe in Christ’s presence during the celebration, but, without the Sacrament of Orders, they have not conserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery.[104] Though some successes in dialogue have occurred, no full agreement exists. Therefore, only in the case of the spiritual need of a well-prepared, non-Catholic member, that is, one who professes the same faith in the Eucharist, can Holy Communion be given. A Catholic, however, can only receive communion from a validly ordained minister.[105]
 
flightkid said:
WorkerPriest…is there documentation or lineage of Lutheran Pastors having “holy orders” or the laying on of hands from an Eastern Cathp;oc Bishop? Any way you can share or show me some articles? Also my question is I thought Lutherans did not believe in needing the laying on hands for pastors to be able to consencrate the eucharist? Is that true?
Click to expand...
Yes, there are some of the smaller Lutheran synods that have either retained or reclaimed Apostolic Succession from Eastern bishops, but they are a significant minority of Lutherans. An exception may be, with historic Lutheran churches in places like Sweden, which never stopped their Apostolic Succession, even after the Reformation. I think the Church of Finland is in a similar situation, which allows them to work very closely with the Russian Orthodox Church, particularly in their border regions.

The majority opinion among Lutherans, is that the Church confers Holy Orders, or places a man into the office of the Holy Ministry, through the calling of that man and the laying on of hands (perhaps a presbyterial succession, or even a baptismal succession, linking that ordination through the faithful all the way back to the Apostles.) In the US, that is most often done as a joint operation between the congregation which calls, the ecclesiastical supervisor/bishop of the area, and the presbyters of the area, all coming together to consecrate that man into Christ’s Apostolic office of Word and Sacrament. We see the office as part of the Church, and not only tied to the succession of particular bishops, following examples of the very early church, where persecution often killed off priests and bishops far faster that they could be canonically confirmed by other local bishops, but noting that the church and the pastoral office continued despite such persecutions.

For some Lutherans, because we note that the Historic or Apostolic Succession is critical to our Christian brothers in other communions, and that it is noted as a worthy thing to retain in our Confessions, have re-instated it for the peace of mind between Christians. While I have an episcopal trail that links back all the way to the Apostles, I do not count that nearly so important as faithfulness to Apostlic doctrine (the Holy Scriptures) and faithful execution of my office as unto Christ for the sake of His people.

Peace be with you.
 
thank you for this explanation. Now when you say the Church lays hands on them do you mean the congregation along with the bishop? My grandparents are Missouri Synod and my wifes parents are ELCA…my wife is now Catholic. But I have learn a lot of wonderful things from Lutherans as well. Even though we have to agree to disagree sometimes, I truly believe we have a lot to learn from each other and we can also serve others in Christ name. I am enjoying this discussion and I look forward to hearing more soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top