Lutheran belief - Sacramental Union (not Consubstantiation)

[benjohnson]

Ben, it isn’t that we reach conclusions concerning the nature of God through philosophy.

That’s reasonable.

It is that we explain divinely revealed truths with philosophical terms because no other terms suffice. We could not define the divinely revealed truth of the Trinity without using philosophical terms to distinguish between “Being” and “Person” for instance.

Agreed - I don’t see logical conclusions in the Creeds, so I would agree that they are not philosophical statements even if we both squabble over if there are philosophical terms in those creeds.

So the fact that philosophical ideas and terms are used does not mean that the doctrine originated with the human mind.

So this bring me back to out mild Lutheran objection - that the various explanations of the Eucharist are not just the product of philosophy, but include philosophical statements.

Here’s the definition from Trent:

For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

My poor reading indicates that not only does it have philosophical terms, but philososphical statements.

As I understand it, this definition is what Catholics must bind themeless too - and for us Lutherans, as I understand, it’s just a bit too much explanation and not enough mystery.

That said, I’ll probably use this very definition with my children - but what they profess is that the Body and Blood are a mystery of faith, and not this definition (worthy as it is).

 

[SteveVH]

Agreed - I don’t see logical conclusions in the Creeds, so I would agree that they are not philosophical statements even if we both squabble over if there are philosophical terms in those creeds.

I guess I don’t understand why you have a problem with philosophical terms or statements in the first place. You may be familiar with St. Aquinas’ proofs of the existence of God. Much of what he wrote was borrowed from Aristotle. For example, Aristotle spoke a truth that could be applied to the existence of God; the “Uncaused Cause”. As long as philosophy speaks truth it cannot be in conflict with theological truth, yet it may express that truth more precisely.

So this bring me back to out mild Lutheran objection - that the various explanations of the Eucharist are not just the product of philosophy, but include philosophical statements.

The various explanations of the Eucharist are certainly not just the product of philosophy. They are based upon the words of Jesus Christ and the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Trent did not invent something new. It definitively stated in precise terms what the Church had always believed. How does one describe something completely unique in the universe; a Person with two natures? We needed a precise term that had never been used - “hypostatic union”. How do we describe, according to what the Church has always understood, how Jesus is present in the Eucharist - Transubstantiation. These terms are unique to Christianity.

Here’s the definition from Trent:

For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.

My poor reading indicates that not only does it have philosophical terms, but philososphical statements.

I would agree. But my reaction is “So what”!

As I understand it, this definition is what Catholics must bind themeless too - and for us Lutherans, as I understand, it’s just a bit too much explanation and not enough mystery.

Well, I find plenty of mystery in the doctrine of Transubstantiation. I also don’t have to wonder if Christ is present in the Eucharist simply because no one consumed it. I don’t have to wonder whether or not it is okay to dispose of it in the trash can. I know it is no longer bread and wine but the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus and I respect it as such.

 

[KjetilK]

Curious, regarding sacramental practice in Norway. Do some parishes use individual cups for the wine?

Many, unfortunately. I would like to use a joint chalice. Many also use intinction.

 

[pablope]

Because it comes from Mans reason - not God’s revelation. I would say, Man’s philosophy comes and goes, but the Word endures forever.

Are you saying man’s reasons are not from God? By what you are stating, man’s reason must come from the dark side of the force:shrug: and that man should shut down reasoning altogether…

 

[KjetilK]

Agreed - I don’t see logical conclusions in the Creeds, so I would agree that they are not philosophical statements even if we both squabble over if there are philosophical terms in those creeds.

They are philosophical statements. It’s just that you have a idiosyncratic view of what a philosophical statement is. It’s not anymore ‘wrong’ to use philosophy to explain the Eucharist (which is done in the FC in that they employ the category of substance/being) than to use philosophy to explain the Trinity or the Incarnation (which is done in Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon).

As I understand it, this definition is what Catholics must bind themeless too - and for us Lutherans, as I understand, it’s just a bit too much explanation and not enough mystery.

But the exact same thing applies to the Trinity (from councils of Nicea and Constantinople) and the Incarnation (from the council of Chalcedon). As Lutherans we are bound to the definitions in those councils, which are shot through with philosophy. The terms are also repeated in Confessio Augustana, articles 1 and 3.

 

[benjohnson]

Are you saying man’s reasons are not from God? By what you are stating, man’s reason must come from the dark side of the force:shrug: and that man should shut down reasoning altogether…

Man’s reasoning ability is from God, but man’s reasoning should be suspect - as I understand it, it’s from man’s reasoning that all heresies have come.

We’re reminded:

Isaiah 55:8-9 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.”

And 1 Corinthians 1:21-31

21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12156087]These two definitions contradict. Only one of them can be correct.

Hi Father K,
Agreed. One of the reasons, I suspect, that Lutheran theologians throughout history have rejected the comparison.

Yet the FC employs philosophy when explaining the Eucharist. This just makes me glad that I can ignore the FC.

But you still haven’t shown what the difference is between SU and consubstantiation. SU states that the substances of bread and wine are present together with the substances of Christ’s body and blood. Consubstantiation states that in the Eucharist “the fundamental substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine.” Where is the difference? Please explain the difference. Don’t just state it. And where have you gotten the idea that consubstantiation means ‘local inclusion’?

It states nothing else than what is stated in the FC. Could you please answer the question I have no posed several times? Can you explain the difference between “the fundamental substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine” and “the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth”? The way these are worded, they are virtually identical. What is the relevant difference between ‘present alongside’ and ‘present together’?

I think the theologians I have posted have done this. They have distinguished the meaning of the language of the FC from that of the philosophical construct, and the meaning(s) associated with consubstantiation.
I can see that you come from a different view of the terms SU and consubstantiation, a view I believe is by no means the historic view of the majority of the Lutheran Church. It seems unnecessary to belabor the point. Instead, I will simply list an example of opinions by Lutheran clergy and theologians, whose understandings of the issue are far better than that of a layman such as me.

stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html

pastorjameskellerman.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-myth-of-consubstantiation.html

blogstuhl.blogspot.com/2008/05/lutherans-deny-consubstantiation.html

pastorreeder.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/some-misrepresentation-and-confusion-lutherans-and-consubstantiation-2/

Jon

 

[f_william]

Christians who believe in the real presence in Eucharist shouldn’t worry how he is presence just so he is.No human can understand how this happen. I heard of catholics believing they are getting to eat the arm leg head of Christ. I know that’s not the real teaching. Words like transubstantiation and cotransub are teachings of how it may happen.I am an Anglican and what most of us teach (not all) is to take the Lord on what he said at the last supper “this is my body” “this is my blood”.He didn’t explain how…Man made these big words to explain how it may happen We have to believe that in the Eucharist we get His body and blood His Bobby soul and divinity. We start teaching this way we might not have all the division in Christianity to day.

 

[KathleenGee]

f william, agree here.

Christ said in receiving the Eucharist, we are receiving eternal life as well which contradicts cessation.

When I read consubstantiation, I envision a plate with wafers and a cup of wine, and next to them, separate still, are the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. So when is on the altar, are instead, 4 objects.

We believe in one Lord, one baptism, the Eucharist: One Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, Who is eternal. The marks of the Church are that we are one, holy, universal (catholic), and apostolic. These marks are sourced in Jesus Christ, the Word Made Flesh.

Thus we have a most ardent veneration for the Incarnation and bow our heads when we arrive again after hearing the Liturgy of the Word.

For me, the Mass is the perfection of the pilgrimage on earth where we are joined to heaven. It is here our communion with the Holy Trinity is actualized.

God is the Unmoved Mover.

Likewise, if we do not use reason, we also come to faulty theology and subsequently faulty practice, and from there, more fragmentation of the oneness we are called to.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Many, unfortunately. I would like to use a joint chalice. Many also use intinction.

All 3 are also used in parishes here. I like the joint chalice [where the chalice actually has two sections; one for the hosts] but the symbolism of communing from the pastor and then an eucharistic minister is missing. This is especially important since Vatican II emphasized lay assistants where the communicant receives the host from the priest and the cup from a layman. Intinction is probably the most common now although many still drink from the chalice. In my parish, there are a few individual cups consecrated for hygienic reasons. Since the spread of AIDS many parishes switched to either a pouring chalice or shot glasses as well as intinction but the chance of spilling the holy Blood makes pouring chalices problematic.

I read on a pastors’ webpage [LCMS] an account where the wine spilled on the communion rail; the pastor actually licked it up after Mass. Luther even had the wood shavings of spilled wine kept in an ambry. But purificators seem the only logical way to protect the holy Elements.

 

[KjetilK]

Agreed. One of the reasons, I suspect, that Lutheran theologians throughout history have rejected the comparison.

But since two definitions, from two different sources, contradict, what makes you think that these two different definitions is really part of one, contradictory, definition?

Wikipedia defines consubstantiation as the belief that “the fundamental “substance” of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines consubstantiation as the belief that “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.”

Encyclopædia Britannica defines consubstantiation as the belief that “Christ’s body and blood substantially coexist with the consecrated bread and wine.”

The article from The Catholic Encyclopedia maintains that this would imply impanation, yet do not state why that would be. And The article from Encyclopædia Britannica maintains that these are contrary to the early Lutheran doctrine, yet do not explain why. But none of these claim that consubstantiation involves a ‘3rd substance.’

Some of the links you have posted claim that consubstantiation involves a ‘3rd substance.’ But why? I have never, ever, heard that claim before. And it will take more than a couple of blog posts to accept that normal people, who hold to consubstantiation, would hold to something that is obviously contradictory (that the body/blood of Christ is present alongside the bread/wine and that they make a 3rd substance).

I have yet to see any reason to accept that my definition of consubstantiation is wrong – simply that alongside the bread we find Christ’s body and alongside the wine we find Christ’s blood. And given this definition, I see no factual difference between consubstantiation and sacramental union.

I think the theologians I have posted have done this. They have distinguished the meaning of the language of the FC from that of the philosophical construct

No, they haven’t. They may claim that they have done so, but when the FC use the language of substantia in Latin and Wesen in German, it involves a philosophical explanation.

and the meaning(s) associated with consubstantiation.

Meanings which are so obviously contradictory they cannot ever have been part of the same definition.

I can see that you come from a different view of the terms SU and consubstantiation, a view I believe is by no means the historic view of the majority of the Lutheran Church. It seems unnecessary to belabor the point. Instead, I will simply list an example of opinions by Lutheran clergy and theologians, whose understandings of the issue are far better than that of a layman such as me.

Let’s take one of the blog posts you linked. There Norman E. Nagel writes about consubstantiation, citing The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. This Encyclopedia, Nagel writes, defines consubstantiation as Lutheran, stating that it is “the theory that the substance of bread and wine remain together with the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrament.” This definition, states Nagel is a “loaded statement indeed,” first and foremost because “the statement depends on the term substance, and observe that it is here used of bread and wine, and not of the body and blood of Christ.” This makes me wonder if Nagel has even bothered to open the FC. Let’s once again quote the actual words: “[In] the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth in the appointed administration of the Sacrament.”

When I wrote my master’s thesis, on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist in the theology of Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict) and Wolfhart Pannenberg, I used the word consubstantiation, stating that Luther didn’t use the term, but making the case that it is essentially the same. I didn’t get a single comment on that from my sensor or examiner. One of them was an expert on Pannenberg and the other was a, quite conservative, lutheran professor of systematic theology and a Luther scholar.

 

[JonNC]

But since two definitions, from two different sources, contradict, what makes you think that these two different definitions is really part of one, contradictory, definition?

Wikipedia defines consubstantiation as the belief that “the fundamental “substance” of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines consubstantiation as the belief that “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.”

Encyclopædia Britannica defines consubstantiation as the belief that “Christ’s body and blood substantially coexist with the consecrated bread and wine.”

The article from The Catholic Encyclopedia maintains that this would imply impanation, yet do not state why that would be. And The article from Encyclopædia Britannica maintains that these are contrary to the early Lutheran doctrine, yet do not explain why. But none of these claim that consubstantiation involves a ‘3rd substance.’

Some of the links you have posted claim that consubstantiation involves a ‘3rd substance.’ But why? I have never, ever, heard that claim before. And it will take more than a couple of blog posts to accept that normal people, who hold to consubstantiation, would hold to something that is obviously contradictory (that the body/blood of Christ is present alongside the bread/wine and that they make a 3rd substance).

I have yet to see any reason to accept that my definition of consubstantiation is wrong – simply that alongside the bread we find Christ’s body and alongside the wine we find Christ’s blood. And given this definition, I see no factual difference between consubstantiation and sacramental union.

No, they haven’t. They may claim that they have done so, but when the FC use the language of substantia in Latin and Wesen in German, it involves a philosophical explanation.

Meanings which are so obviously contradictory they cannot ever have been part of the same definition.

Let’s take one of the blog posts you linked. There Norman E. Nagel writes about consubstantiation, citing The Harper Collins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. This Encyclopedia, Nagel writes, defines consubstantiation as Lutheran, stating that it is “the theory that the substance of bread and wine remain together with the body and blood of Christ in the eucharistic sacrament.” This definition, states Nagel is a “loaded statement indeed,” first and foremost because “the statement depends on the term substance, and observe that it is here used of bread and wine, and not of the body and blood of Christ.” This makes me wonder if Nagel has even bothered to open the FC. Let’s once again quote the actual words: “[In] the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth in the appointed administration of the Sacrament.”

When I wrote my master’s thesis, on the sacrificial character of the Eucharist in the theology of Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict) and Wolfhart Pannenberg, I used the word consubstantiation, stating that Luther didn’t use the term, but making the case that it is essentially the same. I didn’t get a single comment on that from my sensor or examiner. One of them was an expert on Pannenberg and the other was a, quite conservative, lutheran professor of systematic theology and a Luther scholar.

Hi Father,
Well, let me ask you this, do you think that SU is compatible (meaning not Church dividing) with Transubstantiation?

Jon

 

[pablope]

Hi Father,
Well, let me ask you this, do you think that SU is compatible (meaning not Church dividing) with Transubstantiation?

Jon

Jon…Let me ask a question, I think it may not have been asked prior…after many disccusions with Father K…do you believe SU also involves some sort of metaphysical constructs?

 

[pablope]

That’s reasonable.

Here’s the definition from Trent:

My poor reading indicates that not only does it have philosophical terms, but philososphical statements.

Can you post the source from Trent (the website). Tnx.

But Ben…even SU involves some philosophy…so what is your objection?

As I understand it, this definition is what Catholics must bind themeless too - and for us Lutherans, as I understand, it’s just a bit too much explanation and not enough mystery.

Okay…so what is your standard of determining what is “too much”?

And what is your standard for when to determine when the “mystery” is enough and when it is not enough?

 

[benjohnson]

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT13.HTM

But Ben…even SU involves some philosophy…so what is your objection?

In my opinion. SU is basically a restatement of what is revealed to us.

Okay…so what is your standard of determining what is “too much”?

And what is your standard for when to determine when the “mystery” is enough and when it is not enough?

When you have to bind yourself to a philosophical statement that isn’t a revealed from God to be considered a non-heretical Christian.

Even with that said, I don’t think Transubstantiation, if understood to be a bulwark against heresy, should be church deciding.

 

[JonNC]

Jon…Let me ask a question, I think it may not have been asked prior…after many disccusions with Father K…do you believe SU also involves some sort of metaphysical constructs?

I certainly believe Father K believes that. I do not, at least I do not believe that was the intention, although that type of language is used, to which Krauth responds, *"…when this presence is called substantial and bodily, those words designate not the MODE of presence, but the OBJECT. When the words in, with, under, are used, our traducers know, as well as they know their own fingers, that they do NOT signify a CONSUBSTANTIATION, local co-existence, or impanation." *
The term and concept of consubstantiation existed already at the advent of the Reformation. ISTM that had consubstantiation, or a metaphysical/philosophical construct been the intention of the Lutheran reformers, they would have used the term, if that was what they meant. That doesn’t appear to be the case. Further, the rather dramatic response to deny consubstantiation following the accusation by the Calvinists also indicates it was not their intent.

My problem with Sacramental Union is that the language *does *confuse. And I don’t think it is necessary. The Augsburg Confession and the Apology both express the Real Presence in terms that need no clarification for me.

Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present, and are distributed 2] to those who eat the Supper of the Lord; and they reject those that teach otherwise.

Present and distributed excludes the errors of receptionism and cessationism.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Hi Father,
Well, let me ask you this, do you think that SU is compatible (meaning not Church dividing) with Transubstantiation?

No, because SU states that in the consecrated sacrament, the bread and wine are “present together” with the body and blood of Christ, while transubstantiation holds that the bread and wine are transformed, leaving only their appearances or accidents.

But Confessio Augustana article 10 doesn’t teach the FC definition of the real presence (although it can be compatible). Confessio Augustana, being an ecumenical document, is not bound either way. In the 21st article, it is said that “there is nothing [in the first part of the confession] that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome as known from its writers.” Since ‘the Church of Rome’ taught transubstantiation at the time of the Reformation, and had done so (on the level of terminology) for at least 300 years, article 10 must at least be compatible with transubstantiation. In FC we see a narrowing of the definition in Confessio Augustana.

 

[KjetilK]

In my opinion. SU is basically a restatement of what is revealed to us.

Yes, using the Aristotelian philosophical category of substance.

 

[benjohnson]

Yes, using the Aristotelian philosophical category of substance.

We don’t need Aristotle’s definition, as the Gospel has revealed to us. My contention is that you could piece together SU with scripture/revelation, and not philosophy.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

[KjetilK]

We don’t need Aristotle’s definition, as the Gospel has revealed to us. My contention is that you could piece together SU with scripture/revelation, and not philosophy.

That’s not the point. The point is that the FC, which you are bound to as a member of LCMS, do use philosophy when describing the Eucharist. We see the same, with reference to the Trinity and the Incarnation, in Confessio Augustana, articles 1 and 3, which harkens back to the councils of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, and which is binding on both of us. And we see furthermore, in FC, that Aristotelian (or at least Aristotelian inspired) metaphysics are employed quite explicitly in reference to Original Sin.

The problem is that you have an incredibly idiosyncratic view of philosophy, yet you employ philosophy (unconsciously) every time you argue a case.