G
GKC
Guest
double post.
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
Can you cite a magisterial statement that would permit a Lutheran to receive the Eucharist, as a matter of course, at a Roman altar?
I have wondered often whether confusion was the most likely explanation. I cannot tell. What portions of the magisterium, specifically, do you think the declaration on the doctrine of justification have changed? What was taught, with what degree of theological certainty, and what has replaced it?
and 'the RCC declares those to be ‘contemporary catholic confessional statements’? Officially where do they declare that? What do they mean by that?
And what does the RCC mean by ‘eucharistic hospitality’? And where do they state it?"
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
I’m waiting for you to produce a formal magisterial document. Or do you think that the RCC magisterium is established by ecumenical discussion groups issuing papers. A question I asked long, long ago.Your appear to be in step with Missouri Synod Lutherans who have not signed the Declaration.
I keep producing documents and you do not
GKC
E
EvangelCatholic
Guest
Any thoughts?
Quote:
Quote:
G
GKC
Guest
Sure. Do you think that the RCC magisterium is established by ecumenical discussion groups issuing papers. A question I asked long, long ago.
GKC
H
Hockeygurl
Guest
Don’t know what I’m gonna do … my knees are going to eventually give.
I am hotdish royalty… (MN girl) anyone need a recipe? :dancing:
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
While I disagree with HH’s opinions, I do agree with him that what he is saying is the Lutheran eucharistic teaching as taught in the Formula of Concord.
The official Lutheran position would seem to be that the real presence ceases with the service. The Formula of Concord says,
[Let us now come also to the second point, of which mention was made a little before.] To preserve this true Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Supper, and to avoid and abolish manifold idolatrous abuses and perversions of this testament, the following useful rule and standard has been derived from the words of institution: Nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum (“Nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ”) or extra actionem divinitus institutam (“apart from the action divinely instituted”). That is: If the institution of Christ be not observed as He appointed it, there is no sacrament. This is by no means to be rejected, but can and should be urged and maintained with profit in the Church of God. And the use or action here does not mean chiefly faith, neither the oral participation only, but the entire external, visible action of the Lord’s Supper instituted by Christ, [to this indeed is required] the consecration, or words of institution, the distribution and reception, or oral partaking [manducation] of the consecrated bread and wine, [likewise the partaking] of the body and blood of Christ. And apart from this use, when in the papistic mass the bread is not distributed, but offered up or enclosed, borne about, and exhibited for adoration, it is to be regarded as no sacrament; just as the water of baptism, when used to consecrate bells or to cure leprosy, or otherwise exhibited for worship, is no sacrament or baptism. For against such papistic abuses this rule has been set up at the beginning [of the reviving Gospel], and has been explained by Dr. Luther himself, Tom. IV, Jena.
Later in the rejection of transubstatiation, which I quoted previously, it says that the real presence does not persist when the sacrament is reserved in a “pyx” (the German says, “Sakramenthaus,” which means tabernacle) or “carried about for display and adoration.” While I think it leaves the interpretation open as to precisely as to when the real presence ceases (whether at the end of the communion of the faithful, the end of the last prayer, when the priest has left the altar, etc.), I think it is clear that the drafters of the FC do not envision a real presence that persists after the end of the service.
This is reflected in the directives of the LCMS for communion of the sick. LCMS ministers, when they take the reserved elements to the sick, are supposed to perform a new (abriged) communion service in the presence of the patient, including the words of institution.
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Hello, John. We had quite a thread not too long ago on this same subject, which petered out without reaching any real resolution. I have the same opinion as I did back then and I have not seen any good reason to change it, viz., that (1) the doctrine of “sacramental union” taught by the Formula of Concord can be fittingly called “consubstantiation” according to how the term is plainly understood by non-Lutherans, and (2) that sacramental union is incompatible with transubstantiation.
A problem I have with the conversation in this thread so far is that I am the only one who has even addressed the Formula of Concord. A productive discussion will ultimately fall to a precise examination of the FC. Accordingly, I will do my best to address your points using the FC.
52] Therefore original sin properly signifies the deep corruption of our nature, as it is described in the Smalcald Articles. But sometimes the concrete person or the subject, that is, man himself with body and soul, in which sin is and inheres, is also comprised under this term, for the reason that man is corrupted by sin, poisoned and sinful, as when Luther says: “Thy birth, thy nature, and thy entire essence is sin,” that is, sinful and unclean.
53] Luther himself explains that by nature-sin, person-sin, essential sin he means that not only the words, thoughts, and works are sin, but that the entire nature, person, and essence of man are altogether corrupted from the root by original sin.
54] However, as to the Latin words substantia and accidens, a church of plain people ought to be spared these terms in public sermons, because they are unknown to ordinary men. But when learned men among themselves, or with others to whom these words are not unknown, employ such terms in treating this subject, as Eusebius, Ambrose, and especially Augustine, and also still other eminent church-teachers have done, because they were necessary to explain this doctrine in opposition to the heretics, they assume immediatam divisionem, that is, a division between which there is no mean, so that everything that is must be either substantia, that is, a self-existent essence, or accidens, that is, an accidental matter which does not exist by itself essentially, but is in another self-existent essence and can be distinguished from it; which division Cyril and Basil also use.
55] And since, among others, this, too, is an indubitable, indisputable axiom in theology, that every substantia or self-existing essence, so far as it is a substance, is either God Himself or a work and creation of God, Augustine, in many writings against the Manicheans, in common with all true teachers, has, after due consideration and with earnestness, condemned and rejected the statement: Peccatum originis est substantia vel natura, that is, original sin is man’s nature or substance. After him all the learned and intelligent also have always maintained that whatever does not exist by itself, nor is a part of another self-existing essence, but exists, subject to change, in another thing, is not a substantia, that is, something self-existing, but an accidens, that is, something accidental. Accordingly, Augustine is accustomed constantly to speak in this way: Original sin is not the nature itself, but an accidens vitium in natura, that is, an accidental defect and damage in the nature. 56] In this way, previous to this controversy, [learned] men spoke, also in our schools and churches, according to the rules of logic, freely and without being suspected [of heresy], and were never censured on this account either by Dr. Luther or any orthodox teacher of our pure, evangelical churches.
[TO BE CONTINUED]
A problem I have with the conversation in this thread so far is that I am the only one who has even addressed the Formula of Concord. A productive discussion will ultimately fall to a precise examination of the FC. Accordingly, I will do my best to address your points using the FC.
Sacramental union indeed is as much a “metaphysical construct” transubstantiation, being defined in terms of “nature,” “essence,” “substance,” “accident,” etc., as is clear from The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. Your argument that a rejection of transubstantiation merely is a rejection of using Aristotelian metaphysical constructs, while a popular modern view, does not reflect the actual teaching of the Lutheran confessions. For example, the Lutherans speak in no lack of approbation of using Aristotelian terminology to define the dogma of original sin to defend Luther’s teaching from accusations of Manichaeanism. The charge is that Luther’s doctrine of “sin nature” entailed an instrinsically evil human nature, and therefore teaching the evil substance of the Manichaeans. The Fomula of Concord clarifies that Luther and his followers only taught an accidental corruption rather than an essential corruption. Moreover, the Lutherans in no uncertain terms state that terms of substance and accident are “necessary to explain this doctrine in opposition to the heretics” and that “it is the indisputable truth that everything that is, is either a substance or an accidens.”
52] Therefore original sin properly signifies the deep corruption of our nature, as it is described in the Smalcald Articles. But sometimes the concrete person or the subject, that is, man himself with body and soul, in which sin is and inheres, is also comprised under this term, for the reason that man is corrupted by sin, poisoned and sinful, as when Luther says: “Thy birth, thy nature, and thy entire essence is sin,” that is, sinful and unclean.
53] Luther himself explains that by nature-sin, person-sin, essential sin he means that not only the words, thoughts, and works are sin, but that the entire nature, person, and essence of man are altogether corrupted from the root by original sin.
54] However, as to the Latin words substantia and accidens, a church of plain people ought to be spared these terms in public sermons, because they are unknown to ordinary men. But when learned men among themselves, or with others to whom these words are not unknown, employ such terms in treating this subject, as Eusebius, Ambrose, and especially Augustine, and also still other eminent church-teachers have done, because they were necessary to explain this doctrine in opposition to the heretics, they assume immediatam divisionem, that is, a division between which there is no mean, so that everything that is must be either substantia, that is, a self-existent essence, or accidens, that is, an accidental matter which does not exist by itself essentially, but is in another self-existent essence and can be distinguished from it; which division Cyril and Basil also use.
55] And since, among others, this, too, is an indubitable, indisputable axiom in theology, that every substantia or self-existing essence, so far as it is a substance, is either God Himself or a work and creation of God, Augustine, in many writings against the Manicheans, in common with all true teachers, has, after due consideration and with earnestness, condemned and rejected the statement: Peccatum originis est substantia vel natura, that is, original sin is man’s nature or substance. After him all the learned and intelligent also have always maintained that whatever does not exist by itself, nor is a part of another self-existing essence, but exists, subject to change, in another thing, is not a substantia, that is, something self-existing, but an accidens, that is, something accidental. Accordingly, Augustine is accustomed constantly to speak in this way: Original sin is not the nature itself, but an accidens vitium in natura, that is, an accidental defect and damage in the nature. 56] In this way, previous to this controversy, [learned] men spoke, also in our schools and churches, according to the rules of logic, freely and without being suspected [of heresy], and were never censured on this account either by Dr. Luther or any orthodox teacher of our pure, evangelical churches.
[TO BE CONTINUED]
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
57] Now, then, since it is the indisputable truth that everything that is, is either a substance or an accidens, that is, either a self-existing essence or something accidental in it, as has just been shown and proved by testimonies of the church-teachers, and no truly intelligent man has ever had any doubts concerning this, necessity here constrains, and no one can evade it, if the question be asked whether original sin is a substance, that is, such a thing as exists by itself, and is not in another or whether it is an accidens, that is, such a thing as does not exist by itself, but is in another, and cannot exist or be by itself, he must confess straight and pat that original sin is no substance, but an accidens.
58] For this reason, too, the Church of God will never be helped to permanent peace in this controversy, but the dissension will rather be strengthened and kept up, if the ministers of the Church remain in doubt as to whether original sin is a substance or an accidens, and whether it is rightly and properly named thus.
59] Hence, if the churches and schools are to be thoroughly relieved of this scandalous and very mischievous controversy, it is necessary that each and every one be properly instructed concerning this matter.
I suppose it might be objected that it says, “a church of plain people ought to be spared these terms in public sermons, because they are unknown to ordinary men.” Note that it also says, “if the churches and schools are to be thoroughly relieved of this scandalous and very mischievous controversy, it is necessary that each and every one be properly instructed concerning this matter *.” All it means is that pastors should not speak above the education of their audience, not that academic terms should be shunned in all instances. In fact, the Lutherans teach that a proper classification of original sin in terms of substance, accident etc. is necessary for peace and understanding in the Church. Catholic priests do not regularly preach sermons on “substance” and “accident” when they expound the Catholic faith. How then could any Lutheran fault the Catholic Church for using the idea of transubstantation to define her eucharistic beliefs in order to clarify against heresies such as that of Berengarius? Moreover, why would Lutherans hesitate to use this sort of language in order to define the fundamental tenets of their own eucharistic doctrine? Indeed, it is evident that the Formula of Concord does just this, speaking of the “unchanged essence of the bread” etc.
I hope this is sufficient to debunk the meme that Lutherans historically rejected transubstantiation only because they rejected “philosophical definitions.”*
58] For this reason, too, the Church of God will never be helped to permanent peace in this controversy, but the dissension will rather be strengthened and kept up, if the ministers of the Church remain in doubt as to whether original sin is a substance or an accidens, and whether it is rightly and properly named thus.
59] Hence, if the churches and schools are to be thoroughly relieved of this scandalous and very mischievous controversy, it is necessary that each and every one be properly instructed concerning this matter.
I suppose it might be objected that it says, “a church of plain people ought to be spared these terms in public sermons, because they are unknown to ordinary men.” Note that it also says, “if the churches and schools are to be thoroughly relieved of this scandalous and very mischievous controversy, it is necessary that each and every one be properly instructed concerning this matter *.” All it means is that pastors should not speak above the education of their audience, not that academic terms should be shunned in all instances. In fact, the Lutherans teach that a proper classification of original sin in terms of substance, accident etc. is necessary for peace and understanding in the Church. Catholic priests do not regularly preach sermons on “substance” and “accident” when they expound the Catholic faith. How then could any Lutheran fault the Catholic Church for using the idea of transubstantation to define her eucharistic beliefs in order to clarify against heresies such as that of Berengarius? Moreover, why would Lutherans hesitate to use this sort of language in order to define the fundamental tenets of their own eucharistic doctrine? Indeed, it is evident that the Formula of Concord does just this, speaking of the “unchanged essence of the bread” etc.
I hope this is sufficient to debunk the meme that Lutherans historically rejected transubstantiation only because they rejected “philosophical definitions.”*
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
I will now address the quotations of the Lutheran theologians. However, it must be remembered that what defines confessional Lutheran doctrine is not the teaching of any individual theologian, but the text of the Book of Concord. I do not think that any of the theologians are in conflict with the FC, but I disagree with their rejection of the term consubstantiation because I think they define consubstantiation in a very precise way that is contrary to how it is understood by others. I will quote only the first two theologians since they state everything that is stated by the others.
In any case, the real point is not what the doctrine is called. The point of this thread is what the Lutheran doctrine is. The main outline of the teaching is this:
It is evident from this that these Lutheran writers reject the term “consubstantiation” because they envision consubstantiation as entailing two particular teachings:
- A local presense of Christ’s
- A combination of Christ’s body with the bread into a single third substance.
In any case, the real point is not what the doctrine is called. The point of this thread is what the Lutheran doctrine is. The main outline of the teaching is this:
- The substance of the bread always remains even after consecration.
- The substance of Christ’s body is united to the substance of bread in some unclear, non-local and “spiritual” manner.
S
steido01
Guest
I think it’s important to bear in mind the the Formula of Concord, in this explanation which has been aimed specifically at preventing idolatrous practices, presupposes that the entirety of the Body and Blood will be consumed in the Lord’s Supper – as Christ gave no command besides “take and eat.” This section is simply stating that if a priest attempts to consecrate the Bread and Wine with no intent to ever share it with the congregation in the Sacrificial Meal, then it is no more a sacrament than water that is never intended to be used in baptism. Nowhere here does it state that the consecrated Bread and Wine remaining from a Meal that was intended for Sacramental Use ever stops being the Body and Blood (nor does it state that it continues to be so), which brings me back to my earlier posts for contemplation.
Not that it necessarily doesn’t, but rather that it shouldn’t, because Christ gave no command to do so.
Again, this is because of the command we were given, not because His presence necessarily departs. The congregation (whether they be in a church, or in a hospital bed) hears the Word, and the Sacrament is rightly administered.
Precisely, Don.
From the LCMS
Our parish, ostensibly, allows elders to take the consecrated elements to the sick and shut-ins. We have as brief service we verbalize, including that of confession of sins, and the words of institution. In neither case is the elder acting in persona christi as a pastor would. We can’t absolve, nor can we consecrate. We are simply announcing the Gospel. But we do offer His true body and blood which was consecrated during the sacramental act.
As an elder, I have refrained from doing this mainly because I believe the opportunity for absolution should be available to the member prior to receiving.
Jon
K
KjetilK
Guest
None, in my opinion (speaking as a Lutheran priest). But it depends on what conception of metaphysics you have. If you reject an Aristotelian or Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of metaphysics (or any similar conception of metaphysics), they are not the same.So what is the difference?
I will argue that sacramental union in some sense is consubstantiation. It all depends, as I’ve said, on what conception of metaphysics you have. The early confessional Lutherans didn’t reject Aristotelian philosophy, and said that you could employ such a conception of metaphysics with regards to Original Sin (but that you shouldn’t use it with regards to ‘common folk’). As we read in [,Formula of Concord (http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php) with regards to Original Sin:
But as to the Latin terms substantia and accidens, because they are not words of Holy Scripture, and besides unknown to the ordinary man, they should not be used in sermons before ordinary, uninstructed people, but simple people should be spared them.
But in the schools, among the learned, these words are rightly retained in disputations concerning original sin, because they are well known and used without any misunderstanding, to distinguish exactly between the essence of a thing and what attaches to it in an accidental way.
For the distinction between God’s work and that of the devil is thereby designated in the clearest way, because the devil can create no substance, but can only, in an accidental way, by the providence of God [God permitting], corrupt the substance created by God.
Note that while the section deals with original sin as such, the words used here are generalised, showing us that it could apply to other fields also, such as the Eucharist. Thus, if you agree, independent of the sacraments, that an Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of metaphysics (or any similar conception of metaphysics) is true, as I do, then sacramental union is consubstantiation.
I have seen some people argue that the terms aren’t needed, since they cannot be found in Scripture. Well, neither is consubstantial (or any variety of the term), yet these people gladly embrace the Nicene Creed.
For some scholarly defences of an Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of metaphysics, see these articles:
- W. Norris Clarke, «To Be Is to Be Substance-in-Relation,» in Explorations in Metaphysics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press 1994): 102-122
- Tuomas E. Tahko, «In defence of Aristotelian metaphysics,» in Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics, ed. Tuomas E. Tahko (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2012): 26-44
- David S. Oderberg, «How to Win Essence Back from Essentialists» (Philosophical Writings, no. 18, 2001): 27-45
- David S. Oderberg, «Hylomorphism and Individuation,» in Mind, Metaphysics, and Value in the Thomistic and Analytical Traditions, ed. J. Haldane (University of Notre Dame Press 2002): 125-42
- David S. Oderberg, «Hylemorphic Dualism,» in Personal Identity, eds. E.F. Paul, F.D. Miller, & J. Paul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005): 70-99
- David S. Oderberg, «Teleology: Inorganic and Organic,» in Contemporary Perspectives on Natural Law, ed. A.M. González (Aldershot: Ashgate 2008): 259-79
- David S. Oderberg, «Essence and Properties» (Erkenntnis 75, 2011): 85-111
- David S. Oderberg, «Is Form Structure?,» in Neo-Aristotelian Perspectives in Metaphysics, eds. D.D. Novotný & L. Novák (London: Routledge 2014): 164-80.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Probably not. As we see here, they seem to follow Luther, but not Melanchthon, who called Eucharistic adoration ‘bread worship,’ thus descending into a semi-Zwinglian.
Than I’m afraid you hold a belief that is incompatible with Lutheranism.
P
pablope
Guest
K
KjetilK
Guest
Yes, I’m a Lutheran priest. But it hasn’t been long. I was ordained on June 15th (Trinity Sunday). In Norway we don’t really use the titles that much but being high church (the Norwegian Lutheran equivalent of an Anglo-Catholic, I would say), you can call me Father if you like.
Yes. But that depends, as I’ve said, on what conception of metaphysics you have. I am practically convinced of an Aristotelian-Thomistic conception of metaphysics, and with that in mind I see no difference consubstantiation and the Lutheran doctrine of sacramental union.
Consubstantiation states nothing more than the fact that alongside the substance (the reality) and accidents of bread and wine, we find the substance of the body and blood of Christ. That is, in the Eucharist, Christ is ‘in, with and under’ the bread and wine. Given a conception of metaphysics that deals with these categories, there is no difference consubstantiation and the Lutheran doctrine of sacramental union. We could say that, depending on what conception of metaphysics you have, consubstantiation is one of the theories which would fall under sacramental union.
Would you be willing to state that the bread IS His body, the wine IS His blood, as Sasse states?
For me, if we are going to get metphysical about it, that sounds more like Transubstantiation.
Jon
K
KjetilK
Guest
That would depend on what you mean. Could you provide a citation from Hasse? I haven’t read much on him, unfortunately. But Christ did say “this is my body,” holding (what appeared as) bread, and say “this is the chalice of my blood,” holding a chalice with (what appeared as) wine.
That may be. And I incline towards transubstantiation myself.
- Status