Lutheran belief - Sacramental Union (not Consubstantiation)

[KjetilK]

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 according to the Formula of Concord.

Source, please. Show me the paragraph. And if it is there, then that is just one more reason to reject the Formula of Concord. The Church of Norway has never been tied to it. We have, since the Reformation, never been bound to anything outside Scripture, the three ancient symbols, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism.

 

[KjetilK]

Does the church of norway have special parades, Eucharistic adoration, and any worship of the Eucharist outside the use of the sacrament?

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.

Fine. I am not arguing that.

Then what were you arguing? You said that “the Phillipists won the day over the gnesio Lutherans.” But the Phillipists rejected any adoration of the host as ‘bread worship’ – also in the context of Mass. According to the Phillipists, Luther was an idolater who worshipped bread. Although Melanchthon waited to reveal his true Zwinglian self until after Luther had died. Interpret that as you will.

 

[pablope]

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.

Thank you, Father K…for your contributions to this discussion.

Just a question thought, in this quote you provided:

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.

I am understanding from this that the Body of Christ unites with the bread…is this describing consub or SU?

Anyway, also, is it Lutheran teaching then that in the bread, only the body of Christ is present, not His Blood also, or not the totality of Christ in the Bread?

 

[JonNC]

Source, please. Show me the paragraph. And if it is there, then that is just one more reason to reject the Formula of Concord. The Church of Norway has never been tied to it. We have, since the Reformation, never been bound to anything outside Scripture, the three ancient symbols, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism.

From the FC:

They confess, in accordance with the words of Irenaeus, that there are
two things in this sacrament, one heavenly and the other earthly.
Therefore they maintain and teach that with the bread and wine the body
and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, distributed, and
received. And although they deny a transubstantiation (that is, an
essential change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ)
and do not believe that the body and blood of Christ are locally enclosed
in the bread, or are in some other way permanently united with it apart
from the use of the sacrament, they grant that through sacramental union
the bread is the body of Christ, etc. For they do not maintain that the body
of Christ is present apart from the use, as when the bread is laid aside or
reserved in the tabernacle or carried about and exposed in procession, **as
happens in the papacy **(FC SD VII, 14-15) [21]

The key phrase here is bolded by me. The FC is making a distinction between our practice and that of the CC at that time.I don’t believe it is making a doctrinal statement claiming Christ’s presence comes then goes. Contrary to the Catholic usages described in the FC, the Lutheran practice of reservation is for the communing of the sick and shut ins, and for use at the next mass. In this way, the sacrament continues for its intended use, to eat and drink.

From The Altar Guild Manual: Lutheran Service Book Edition:

If any of the Lord’s body and blood remain, they can be disposed of in a number of ways. The best way is to consume the remaining elements, since the Lord said, “Take and eat…Take and drink,” and did not provide for anything that was left over. There is historic precedent for reserving the remaining elements against the next Communion. The hosts can be stored in a pyx or ciborium (apart from unconsecrated hosts), the blood of the Lord in a suitable cruet or flagon (apart from unconsecrated wine). What remains in the chalice, however, should either be consumed or poured into the piscina or onto the ground, since there may be crumbs or other foreign matter in it. The reserved elements may then be kept in the sacristy or placed on the altar or credence and covered with a white veil. It is un-Lutheran and irreverent to place unused elements in the trash or to pour the remainder of what is in the chalice or flagon into the common drain. - p. 89

This, from the LCMS, appears in the Altar Guild Manual, and clearly refers to the reliquae as His body and blood.

In short, I don’t believe that the FC intends to defend cessationism.

Jon

 

[pablope]

F

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.

I thought Lutherans are not Bible literalists?

Well…how do you know that Christ did not explain it to the Apostles, though unwritten, but remained and retained and passed through Sacred Tradition?

And besides, let us say Christ did not expound on it…so the Holy Spirit, which Christ promised to the Church…has then been asleep at the wheel and did not guide the Church, or has failed to guide the Church in this regard for 1500 years prior to the Reformation?

So what both East and West has been doing for 1500 years with regards the Eucharist, has been without the guidance of the HS and they have been running around like headless chickens, not knowing what to do and just invented all of it?

 

[pablope]

Yes. T
But consubstantiation is not any more or less of an ‘explanation’ than ‘of the same essence as the Father’ is an ‘explanation,’ and neither is transubstantiation. It just states what happens, not how.

Consubstantiation just states that in the Eucharist we have two (four) substances coexisting – the bread and Christ’s body, and the wine and Christ’s blood. Nothing more, nothing less. And that is exactly what is formulated in the Formula of Concord.

Formula of Concord).

Another question, Father K :

SU also describes the same thing, does it not?

 

[KjetilK]

In short, I don’t believe that the FC intends to defend cessationism.

And neither do I. I am wondering who has taught House, who is a convert, that the Lutheran confessions teach cessationism.

 

[pablope]

Hi Father,

You said yourself that you would lean toward Transubstantiation. So would I, if pressed into a metaphysical construct of it. Christ says, “this IS my body”, not “this is my body included in the bread”, or “this is something formed from my body and the bread mixed together”. These would be descriptions of consubstantiation or impanation.

But SU does not speak of consubstantiation in the models provided, and Lutheran theologians throughout the history of the communion have stated so, that we do not hold to the expression of the Eucharist in terms consubstantiation.

Jon

Well Jon…why are Lutherans so hung up on the use of metaphysical constructs? As explained by Father K, even the Fathers used it at Nicea.

By not resorting to the use of metaphysical constructs, does it somehow make you a better Christian? That somehow, God looks at you with more favor that someone who does? (Meant no disrepect here, just asking…)

 

[pablope]

Hi Father,

You said yourself that you would lean toward Transubstantiation. So would I, if pressed into a metaphysical construct of it. Christ says, “this IS my body”, not “this is my body included in the bread”, or “this is something formed from my body and the bread mixed together”. These would be descriptions of consubstantiation or impanation.

But SU does not speak of consubstantiation in the models provided, and Lutheran theologians throughout the history of the communion have stated so, that we do not hold to the expression of the Eucharist in terms consubstantiation.

Jon

Well Jon…why are Lutherans so hung up on the use of metaphysical constructs? As explained by Father K, even the Fathers used it at Nicea.

By not resorting to the use of metaphysical constructs, does it somehow make you a better Christian? That somehow, God looks at you with more favor that someone who does? (Meant no disrespect here, just asking…)

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12154872]I thought Lutherans are not Bible literalists?

We aren’t, but doctrine must have some support for scripture. More on this in a bit.

Well…how do you know that Christ did not explain it to the Apostles, though unwritten, but remained and retained and passed through Sacred Tradition?

We don’t, and neither does anyone else.

And besides, let us say Christ did not expound on it…so the Holy Spirit, which Christ promised to the Church…has then been asleep at the wheel and did not guide the Church, or has failed to guide the Church in this regard for 1500 years prior to the Reformation?

So what both East and West has been doing for 1500 years with regards the Eucharist, has been without the guidance of the HS and they have been running around like headless chickens, not knowing what to do and just invented all of it?

You know better. The doctrine of the real presence has always been a part of the Church, and in many ways, the center of the faith of the Church, east and west before and after the Great Schism.

From our confessions:

we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper.

But even the East does not hold Transubstantiation as doctrine, and John of Demascus says it well: “**Now you ask, how does the bread become Christ’s body and the wine and water Christ’s blood? And I say to thee, ‘the Holy Spirit is present and does these things which surpass reason and thought’ . . . It is enough for you to learn that it was through the Holy Spirit . . .” **

John of Damascus has no inclination of thinking the Spirit is “asleep at the wheel”, but instead accepts the mystery in faith and thanksgiving. Christ tells us the truth: it is His body and blood - that is the literalism we are willing to confess.

None of this, however, means that anyone knows that Transubstantiation is wrong. We don’t. When Catholics use Transubstantiation to express the real presence in a way that believers can grasp, that’s a good thing. We would claim the same for Lutherans, that Sacramental Union does the same.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Another question, Father K :

SU also describes the same thing, does it not?

I think it does.

 

[JonNC]

I think it does.

So, Father, do you reject the Sacramental Union?

Jon

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Is this belief universal to all Lutherans, or just LCMS? I can tell you with 100% certainty that the time I was introduced to consubstantiation was at a Lutheran church in the pastor’s sermon.

Same here…

 

[KjetilK]

Well Jon…why are Lutherans so hung up on the use of metaphysical constructs? As explained by Father K, even the Fathers used it at Nicea.

This is a question I ask myself often, although I would phrase it thusly: “Why are some Lutherans so hung up on the use of metaphysical constructs?”

 

[KjetilK]

So, Father, do you reject the Sacramental Union?

What makes you think that? The way I see it, consubstantiation is sacramental union.

 

[steido01]

I thought Lutherans are not Bible literalists?

Those are loaded buzzwords, friend. I’d need to know what you mean by them in order to say either way.

Well…how do you know that Christ did not explain it to the Apostles, though unwritten, but remained and retained and passed through Sacred Tradition?

I suppose He could have, though none of the Apostles seemed to think this important enough information to write down or demand that it be made doctrine essential to the Faith. For the Roman Catholic Church to make the “how” into doctrine more than 1500 years later, and to anathematize anyone who disagrees – well, that’s where we have our beef. Conversely, you have no way of proving that Christ did explain how this mystery happens, and to pretend you do sounds an awful lot like putting words into His mouth.

And besides, let us say Christ did not expound on it…so the Holy Spirit, which Christ promised to the Church…has then been asleep at the wheel and did not guide the Church, or has failed to guide the Church in this regard for 1500 years prior to the Reformation?

How would it qualify as being “asleep at the wheel” if the Holy Spirit doesn’t explain how the miracle happens? Do we need to know how Moses parted the Red Sea? How Jesus turned water into wine?

So what both East and West has been doing for 1500 years with regards the Eucharist, has been without the guidance of the HS and they have been running around like headless chickens, not knowing what to do and just invented all of it?

Not at all. I don’t believe I ever said this or even insinuated it. Quite to the contrary. Jesus was quite clear when He told us what to do; “Take, eat. Take, drink.”

 

[pablope]

We aren’t, but doctrine must have some support for scripture. More on this in a bit.

We don’t, and neither does anyone else.

You know better. The doctrine of the real presence has always been a part of the Church, and in many ways, the center of the faith of the Church, east and west before and after the Great Schism.

None of this, however, means that anyone knows that Transubstantiation is wrong. We don’t. When Catholics use Transubstantiation to express the real presence in a way that believers can grasp, that’s a good thing. We would claim the same for Lutherans, that Sacramental Union does the same.

Jon

Jon, I think you misunderstood what I am asking. I was not asking about the Real Presence, but about what happens after consecration, which I presume is what Steido/Don was asking below:

[SIGN]Originally Posted by steido01 View Post

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.[/SIGN]

That is why I asked…has Christ failed to communicate and train the Apostles completely and adequately? Because this is the conclusion from Steido’s statement or any Lutheran, for that matter, when you state Christ did not expound on it?

And let us say Christ did not expound on it…so the HS has failed to guide the Church, after the Pentecost, in that it did not guide the Church, in what to do with the Eucharist leftovers after the Mass?

If it your position that the HS has not guided the Church, then the HS has been asleep at the wheel, and both East and West were just inventing things without the guidance of the HS.

 

[JonNC]

What makes you think that? The way I see it, consubstantiation is sacramental union.

And yet you said earlier that you lean toward Transubstantiation.
I don’t mean this as a gottcha, but my view is that, in SU, what we say without using metaphysical constructs is essentially what Catholics say using them. We are saying, in different ways, that this is His body, and this is His blood. I don’t believe consubstantiation says that.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Those are loaded buzzwords, friend. I’d need to know what you mean by them in order to say either way.

From your statement that Christ did not expound on it…it is not clear in the Bible, I thought Lutherans also rely on tradition and councils and the ECFs.

I suppose He could have, though none of the Apostles seemed to think this important enough information to write down or demand that it be made doctrine essential to the Faith.

But most of the Apostles did not write anything down, only a few of them. So you don’t know either what the Apostles demanded… But hey did ordain their successors, and train them likewise.

For the Roman Catholic Church to make the “how” into doctrine more than 1500 years later, and to anathematize anyone who disagrees – well, that’s where we have our beef.

Do believe that bishops were given the authority to bind and loose? Is this not part of the binding and loosing of bishops?

Conversely, you have no way of proving that Christ did explain how this mystery happens, and to pretend you do sounds an awful lot like putting words into His mouth.

Where did I pretend I knew?

How would it qualify as being “asleep at the wheel” if the Holy Spirit doesn’t explain how the miracle happens? Do we need to know how Moses parted the Red Sea? How Jesus turned water into wine?

That is the conclusion from your own statement, that the HS has failed to guide the Church with regards what happens to the Eucharist after the Mass.

Not at all. I don’t believe I ever said this or even insinuated it. Quite to the contrary. Jesus was quite clear when He told us what to do; “Take, eat. Take, drink.”

Right, so the question, has the HS failed to guide the Church on what to do with what remains unconsumed after the Mass?

 

[steido01]

Jon, I think you misunderstood what I am asking. I was not asking about the Real Presence, but about what happens after consecration, which I presume is what Steido/Don was asking below:

And let us say Christ did not expound on it…so the HS has failed to guide the Church, after the Pentecost, in that it did not guide the Church, in what to do with the Eucharist leftovers after the Mass?

If it your position that the HS has not guided the Church, then the HS has been asleep at the wheel, and both East and West were just inventing things without the guidance of the HS.

I wasn’t referring to what to do with the remaining Body and Blood - for that, I am in complete agreement with my communion (the LCMS, as quoted earlier) and Jon. I was referring to “how” the actual Real Presence occurs. That’s where we Lutherans generally disagree with our Roman Catholic friends.

Separately, House contends that the Real Presence does not persist outside of the Sacramental act - and what Jon, Father K and I are trying to understand is whether House falls into the error of Receptionism, or whether he simply has a different understanding of what the ‘Sacramental act’ is.