Hi Father,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.
I have seen no Lutheran theologian write that Luther’s Sacramental Union was akin to consubstantiation, but instead all of them reject the Calvinist slam against us.It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say. [This is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, (Adelaide, South Australia: Openbook Publishers, 1959) 129.]
That might also just mean that they are inconsistent (or that they reject such a concept of metaphysics).I have seen no Lutheran theologian write that Luther’s Sacramental Union was akin to consubstantiation, but instead all of them reject the Calvinist slam against us.
Hi Father,That might also just mean that they are inconsistent (or that they reject such a concept of metaphysics).
A quote from the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, article VII, paragraph 37:
Even as many eminent ancient teachers, Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom and others, use this simile concerning the words of Christ’s testament: This is My body, that just as in Christ two distinct, unchanged natures are inseparably united, so 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.
The words translated ‘natures’ are substantiae in Latin and zwei Wesen in German.
This is either consubstantiation (which states nothing more than the idea that in the sacrament of the Altar, the substance of the body and blood of Christ is present alongside the substance of the bread and wine) or impanation. It cannot be impanation, or else we would have received through the Confessions the belief that Christ is ‘true God, true man, true bread, and true wine.’
I see no difference between ‘consubstantiation’ and ‘sacramental union’ (as presented in the above paragraph). Where is this supposed difference? If the answer is that we shouldn’t use philosophical explanations and rather ‘embrace the mystery,’ I answer that in using substantia and Wesen, the confession has already used philosophy. And moreover, that philosophy isn’t bad in and of itself. The doctrine of the Incarnation, as we have received it from Nicea and Constantinople, and which is attested in Confessio Augustana I-III, depends itself on a philosophic explanation – i.e. that Christ is ‘of the same essence as the Father’ or ‘consubstantial with the Father.’ This, of course, doesn’t diminish the mystery of the Incarnation, and neither does a philosophical treatment of the sacraments.
It’s not that it’s too horrible - it’s just that the Eucharist is such a mystery that any metaphysical definition will have to come up short.But what is the problem of being ‘charged’ with this belief?
But the same applies to the Incarnation. That didn’t stop the Nicean Fathers using philosophy to explain to relationship between the Father and the Son, and it didn’t stop the early Lutherans in affirming that belief in Confessio Augustana.It’s not that it’s too horrible - it’s just that the Eucharist is such a mystery that any metaphysical definition will have to come up short.
Father, is it fitting to compare the Incarnation to the Real Presence when it comes to metaphysical explanations? I mean, nearly the entire Gospel of John explains how and why the Incarnation happened, and the Apostle Paul discusses this further. Meanwhile, the Real Presence has, essentially, Christ’s simple command, “Take eat; this is my Body. Take drink; this is my Blood.” Had Christ expounded on how this happens, I could be convinced to accept a metaphysical explanation (like you and the other Lutherans here, I’d probably lean toward Transubstantiation if I had to choose one.). But Scripture doesn’t give us any further direction here. And I don’t see how the Confessions demand anything further of us either.But the same applies to the Incarnation. That didn’t stop the Nicean Fathers using philosophy to explain to relationship between the Father and the Son, and it didn’t stop the early Lutherans in affirming that belief in Confessio Augustana.
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.
IIRC the Phillipists won the day over the gnesio Lutherans. That’s why there isn’t any any Eucharistic adoration in most Lutheran parishes.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.
LOL.Than I’m afraid you hold a belief that is incompatible with Lutheranism.
Wow, are you sure about that? I have never participated in a Lutheran Mass that did not have elevations of the host/ cup [often several times during the Eucharistic Prayer]. Lutherans kneel, bow, make the sign of the cross in front of the consecrated elements.IIRC the Phillipists won the day over the gnesio Lutherans. **That’s why there isn’t any any Eucharistic adoration in most Lutheran parishes. **
LOL.
I am talking about a separate adoration outside of the normal use of the sacrament.Wow, are you sure about that? I have never participated in a Lutheran Mass that did not have elevations of the host/ cup [often several times during the Eucharistic Prayer]. Lutherans kneel, bow, make the sign of the cross in front of the consecrated elements.
Your experience as a Lutheran seems to be rather limited, in all due respects.
I think HH was meaning that his parish does not reserve the host specifically and only for adoration. I don’t think he meant that he doesn’t give the Body and Blood its due reverence during the sacramental act. All Lutherans adore the Body and Blood as they receive Him by kneeling at the altar rail, meditation through the communion hymns, etc. I would hope, anyway!Wow, are you sure about that? I have never participated in a Lutheran Mass that did not have elevations of the host/ cup [often several times during the Eucharistic Prayer]. Lutherans kneel, bow, make the sign of the cross in front of the consecrated elements.
Your experience as a Lutheran seems to be rather limited, in all due respects.
Sorry, I thought you meant during Mass. Keep in mind that Lutherans do not oppose adoration of the Reserved Sacrament but our focus is on Christ, the Lamb of God, in the Eucharist.I am talking about a separate adoration outside of the normal use of the sacrament.
Yes. They are not the same thing. But both are mysteries which have been given philosophical ‘explanations.’ The sentiment I often meet is that we shouldn’t use philosophy in explaining the Eucharist, since it is a ‘mystery.’ But the Incarnation is also a mystery, yet it is somehow OK to use philosophy in ‘explaining’ it.Father, is it fitting to compare the Incarnation to the Real Presence when it comes to metaphysical explanations?
I disagree there. The Gospel of John doesn’t ‘explain’ the Incarnation, it simply states that the Father and the Son are one. It doesn’t explain how, and neither did the formulations of the councils. The formulation of Nicea wasn’t self-evident, and it took almost 300 years to get to it. And it wasn’t done with Nicea, you also had the subsequent councils.Meanwhile, the Real Presence has, essentially, Christ’s simple command, “Take eat; this is my Body. Take drink; this is my Blood.” Had Christ expounded on how this happens, I could be convinced to accept a metaphysical explanation (like you and the other Lutherans here, I’d probably lean toward Transubstantiation if I had to choose one.). But Scripture doesn’t give us any further direction here. And I don’t see how the Confessions demand anything further of us either.
The Phillipists didn’t win over the Church of Norway. We adore Christ in the sacrament at Mass. The Phillipists didn’t just react against special services of Eucharistic adoration, such as processions and such, they actually referred to Adoration of the Eucharist (in Mass) as ‘bread worship.’ I reject them with all my might. Phillipists aren’t Lutheran, they are semi-Zwinglians.IIRC the Phillipists won the day over the gnesio Lutherans. That’s why there isn’t any any Eucharistic adoration in most Lutheran parishes.
Laugh all you want. It doesn’t make it less true. Lutherans explicitly deny that the real presence doesn’t persist outside the use of the sacrament. Once the bread and wine is consecrated, it remains so until consumed.LOL.
The Phillipists didn’t win over the Church of Norway. We adore Christ in the sacrament at Mass. The Phillipists didn’t just react against special services of Eucharistic adoration, such as processions and such, they actually referred to Adoration of the Eucharist (in Mass) as ‘bread worship.’ I reject them with all my might. Phillipists aren’t Lutheran, they are semi-Zwinglians.
Laugh all you want. It doesn’t make it less true. Lutherans explicitly deny that the real presence doesn’t persist outside the use of the sacrament. Once the bread and wine is consecrated, it remains so until consumed.
Does the church of norway have special parades, Eucharistic adoration, and any worship of the Eucharist outside the use of the sacrament?The Phillipists didn’t win over the Church of Norway. We adore Christ in the sacrament at Mass. The Phillipists didn’t just react against special services of Eucharistic adoration, such as processions and such, they actually referred to Adoration of the Eucharist (in Mass) as ‘bread worship.’ I reject them with all my might. Phillipists aren’t Lutheran, they are semi-Zwinglians.
Not all Lutherans. At least not those that hold to the Formula of Concord.Laugh all you want. It doesn’t make it less true. Lutherans explicitly deny that the real presence doesn’t persist outside the use of the sacrament. Once the bread and wine is consecrated, it remains so until consumed.
Sometimes, perhaps, but not as a norm, and there is nothing about it in the rubrics. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that Melanchthon opposed adoration of the sacrament as such, also in the context of Mass. He called it ‘bread worship.’ He didn’t merely oppose parades, he opposed Eucharistic adoration as such (as when we adore Christ in the sacrament in the context of Mass). What he did, then, was to call Luther an idolater.Does the church of norway have special parades, Eucharistic adoration, and any worship of the Eucharist outside the use of the sacrament?
It is part of the Lutheran faith that once the elements are consecrated, they remain so until consumed. That doesn’t mean that everything done to or with them is proper, but they still remain consecrated, and still retain the real presence of Christ.Not all Lutherans.
I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread regarding the term consubstantiation.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.
Sometimes, perhaps, but not as a norm, and there is nothing about it in the rubrics. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that Melanchthon opposed adoration of the sacrament as such, also in the context of Mass. He called it ‘bread worship.’ He didn’t merely oppose parades, he opposed Eucharistic adoration as such (as when we adore Christ in the sacrament in the context of Mass). What he did, then, was to call Luther an idolater.
It is part of the Lutheran faith that once the elements are consecrated, they remain so until consumed. That doesn’t mean that everything done to or with them is proper, but they still remain consecrated, and still retain the real presence of Christ.
Fine. I am not arguing that.Sometimes, perhaps, but not as a norm, and there is nothing about it in the rubrics. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that Melanchthon opposed adoration of the sacrament as such, also in the context of Mass. He called it ‘bread worship.’ He didn’t merely oppose parades, he opposed Eucharistic adoration as such (as when we adore Christ in the sacrament in the context of Mass). What he did, then, was to call Luther an idolater.
Not according to the Formula of Concord.It is part of the Lutheran faith that once the elements are consecrated, they remain so until consumed. That doesn’t mean that everything done to or with them is proper, but they still remain consecrated, and still retain the real presence of Christ.
Hi Father,But what is the problem of being ‘charged’ with this belief?
The same principle of a solely local and visible mode of presence results in a polemic against the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper on the part of the Reformed which is untruthful through and through. Because the Reformed, the moment they hear of a true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament, always visualize only their visible and local presence, “as the peasant fills out jacket and breeches,” they ascribe to us Lutherans a local inclusion (localis inclusion, Hodge, Syst. Theol., I, 83) of the body of Christ in the bread, or a local consubstantiation (consubstantiatio), or even a physical compounding (permixtio) of bread and body of Christ. **Because of the same bias they apply to us Lutherans the titles “carnivorous beasts,” “blood guzzlers,” and “cannibals,” and call the Supper instituted by Christ, with the real presence of the body and blood of Christ which is given and shed for us, a “Cyclopean meal” and a “Thyestean banquet.” **All this is the result of their adoption of the thesis that Christ’s body can have only a visible and local mode of presence as their principle of Scripture interpretation. [Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. III (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950) 326-27.]
In the bolded section, Pieper here specifically tells why we must reject the Calvinist polemic against us.The discussion of the twofold material and the unio sacramentalis gives rise to the question how to define more definitely the manner (modus) of the taking of body and blood. We say: (1) Because the twofold material is combined into a sacramental unity, that is, since Christ gives His body with the bread and His blood with the wine, we receive with the mouth (manducatio oralis) not merely the bread and wine, but also the body and blood of Christ. (2) Since, however, the union of the material coelestis with the material terrena is not a natural or local, but a supernatural union (no localis inclusio, impanatio, consubstantiatio), we receive the body and blood of Christ with the mouth not in a natural, but in a supernatural manner. On the basis of the unio sacramentalis the Formula of Concord, on the one hand, adheres to the oral receiving of Christ’s body and blood; on the other hand, to the supernatural manner of the reception. It says: “When at the table and during the Supper [mensaie assidens], He [Christ] offers His disciples natural bread and natural wine, which He calls His true body and true blood, at the same time saying: ‘Eat and drink.’ For in view of the circumstances this command evidently cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking, however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way.” (Trigl. 995, Sol. Decl., VII, 64.) [Pieper, Vol. III, 362]
On this, Father, we are in full agreement. The notion that Christ’s body and blood comes and goes has led to the horrible belief of receptionism. There is a growing trend in the LCMS to, once again, return to the practice of elevation of the sacrament. This, along with genuflection by the celebrant, is a visable statement to the fact that on the altar, without doubt is Christ Himself, His body and blood. And when all have been fed, He remains to be used for the sick and shut ins, and for the next celebration of the mass.Sometimes, perhaps, but not as a norm, and there is nothing about it in the rubrics. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that Melanchthon opposed adoration of the sacrament as such, also in the context of Mass. He called it ‘bread worship.’ He didn’t merely oppose parades, he opposed Eucharistic adoration as such (as when we adore Christ in the sacrament in the context of Mass). What he did, then, was to call Luther an idolater.
It is part of the Lutheran faith that once the elements are consecrated, they remain so until consumed. That doesn’t mean that everything done to or with them is proper, but they still remain consecrated, and still retain the real presence of Christ.