Lutheran belief - Sacramental Union (not Consubstantiation)

[EvangelCatholic]

To suggest that Lutherans accept consubstantiation seems almost heretical since the nature of Christ’s presence in the holy Sacrament has received extensive attention in Lutheran teaching. On the other hand, the holy Mystery is beyond anyone so individual belief is irrelevant in my opinion.

Even Roman Catholics tempered their insistence on transubstantiation in talks with Lutherans.

 

[JonNC]

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:

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.

You seem to have missed John of Damascus’ meaning. The Spirit has not failed so long as the Church continues to provide the sacrament. Further, it could be said to be presumptuous on our part for us to expect to know everything about the mystery, or claim that the Spirit has failed to guide. Could it be that John of Damascus’ quote is precisely the guidance the Holy Spirit intends for us to have?

As for the reliquae, perhaps it is the plan that the Church act to preserve the reverence while reserving the elements, or consuming them to avoid concerns. Interestingly, the East typically does not reserve the sacrament, as far as I know, other than for taking to the sick and shut ins. But this would be similar to Lutheran practice.
IOW, we agree that the main purpose of the sacrament, is eating and drinking for the remission of sins, though we may differ in how we reverently handle the reliquae.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

We are saying, in different ways, that this is His body, and this is His blood. I don’t believe consubstantiation says that.

Yes, I have understood that. I have yet to see any arguments for that position. Consubstantiation just states that, alongside the substance of the elements, there is the substance of the body and blood of Christ. No more, no less.

And yet you said earlier that you lean toward Transubstantiation.

Yes, I do tend towards it. But my point was that those who reject consubstantiation, yet adhere to the Formula of Concord, are inconsistent. The Formula of Concord states that “in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth.” The words translated ‘natures’ are substantiae in Latin and [zwei] Wesen in German. This just simply is consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is not the same as impanation.

As to transubstantiation, I do tend towards it, and don’t see that as a problem. The wording in Confessio Augustana X is, translated from the Latin text, that in the Eucharist, “the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present” or, translated from the German text (see the same link) that in the Eucharist, “the true Body and Blood of Christ are present under the form of bread and wine [Ger. *unter Gestalt des Brotes und Weines].”

The word ‘form’ or Gestalt can either mean, in this context, the bread and wine itself (which would be the equivalent of consubstantiation or sacramental union, as defined in the Book of Concord) or the accidents of the bread and wine (which would be the equivalent of transubstantiation). On the basis of Confessio Augustana alone, both consubstantiation or sacramental union and transubstantiation are acceptable. And I do not adhere to the Formula of Concord, and am thus not bound to believe in consubstantiation or sacramental union.

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12155110]Yes, I have understood that. I have yet to see any arguments for that position. **Consubstantiation just states that, alongside the substance of the elements, there is the substance of the body and blood of Christ. **No more, no less.

And SU doesn’t teach that. But either way, this isn’t the historic definition of consubstantiation, as I provided to you in the two links.

Yes, I do tend towards it. But my point was that those who reject consubstantiation, yet adhere to the Formula of Concord, are inconsistent. The Formula of Concord states that “in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth.” The words translated ‘natures’ are substantiae in Latin and [zwei] Wesen in German. This just simply is consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is not the same as impanation.

And yet you said you do not reject SU but accept Transubstantiation. The FC specifically rejects consubstantiation:

41 20. Likewise, we also hand over all proud, frivolous, blasphemous questions (which decency forbids us to mention), and other expressions to God’s just judgment. Most blasphemously and with great offense ‹to the Church› such things are proposed by the Sacramentarians in a crass, carnal, Capernaitic way about the supernatural, heavenly mysteries of this Sacrament.
42 21. We utterly ‹reject and› condemn the Capernaitic eating of Christ’s body, as though ‹we taught that› His flesh were torn with the teeth and digested like other food. The Sacramentarians—against the testimony of their conscience, after all our frequent protests—willfully label us with this view. In this way they make our teaching hateful to their hearers. On the other hand, we hold and believe, according to the simple words of Christ’s testament, the true, yet supernatural eating of Christ’s body and also the drinking of His blood. Human senses and reason do not comprehend. But, as in all other articles of faith, our reason is brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ [2 Corinthians 10:5]. This mystery is not grasped in any other way than through faith alone, and it is revealed in the Word alone. [Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, ed. Paul Timothy McCain (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 490-91.]

As to transubstantiation, I do tend towards it, and don’t see that as a problem. The wording in Confessio Augustana X is, translated from the Latin text, that in the Eucharist, “the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present” or, translated from the German text (see the same link) that in the Eucharist, “the true Body and Blood of Christ are present under the form of bread and wine [Ger. *unter Gestalt des Brotes und Weines

].”
I don’t particularly have a problem with it either, other than the declaration of it as doctrine.

The word ‘form’ or Gestalt can either mean, in this context, the bread and wine itself (which would be the equivalent of consubstantiation or sacramental union, as defined in the Book of Concord) or the accidents of the bread and wine (which would be the equivalent of transubstantiation). On the basis of Confessio Augustana alone, both consubstantiation or sacramental union and transubstantiation are acceptable. And I do not adhere to the Formula of Concord, and am thus not bound to believe in consubstantiation or sacramental union.

I understand, and since the FC specifically denies consub. and impanation, I’m not bound to believe them either.

I won’t belabor the point, Father, other than to say that every Lutheran theologian I have read reject out of hand the link of SU to consubstantiation. The definitions of it do not match up to the FC description of SU, even if one includes the metaphysical construct.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Charles Porterfield Krauth puts a point on the issue:

**…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 charge that we hold a local inclusion, or Consubstantiation, is a calumny. The eating and drinking are not physical, but mystical and sacramental. An action is not necessarily figurative because it is not physical. **[Charles Porterfield Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2007) 768.]

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Who has said that consubstantiation involes ‘local co-existence’? As I see it, consubstantiation merely states that the substance of Christ’s body and blood is present with the bread. That is exactly what is being said in FC: “in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth.”

 

[MaryT777]

Yes, I have understood that. I have yet to see any arguments for that position. Consubstantiation just states that, alongside the substance of the elements, there is the substance of the body and blood of Christ. No more, no less.

Yes, I do tend towards it. But my point was that those who reject consubstantiation, yet adhere to the Formula of Concord, are inconsistent. The Formula of Concord states that “in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth.” The words translated ‘natures’ are substantiae in Latin and [zwei] Wesen in German. This just simply is consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is not the same as impanation.

As to transubstantiation, I do tend towards it, and don’t see that as a problem. The wording in Confessio Augustana X is, translated from the Latin text, that in the Eucharist, “the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present” or, translated from the German text (see the same link) that in the Eucharist, “the true Body and Blood of Christ are present under the form of bread and wine [Ger. *unter Gestalt des Brotes und Weines

].”

The word ‘form’ or Gestalt can either mean, in this context, the bread and wine itself (which would be the equivalent of consubstantiation or sacramental union, as defined in the Book of Concord) or the accidents of the bread and wine (which would be the equivalent of transubstantiation). On the basis of Confessio Augustana alone, both consubstantiation or sacramental union and transubstantiation are acceptable. And I do not adhere to the Formula of Concord, and am thus not bound to believe in consubstantiation or sacramental union.

I am so glad you are here to post, you are a wealth of information.
Mary.

 

[GKC]

I am so glad you are here to post, you are a wealth of information.
Mary.

The good Father is that, indeed.

Jon is nifty, too.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

Who has said that consubstantiation involes ‘local co-existence’? As I see it, consubstantiation merely states that the substance of Christ’s body and blood is present with the bread. That is exactly what is being said in FC: “in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth.”

That’s the historic definition, Father. Unless you can reference a Lutheran theologian who says differently, it seems virtually universal that Lutheran theologians do not see SU as consubstantiation, nor do they define it as you do.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

The good Father is that, indeed.

Jon is nifty, too.

GKC

I agree about Father K. He has provided a view which I have not seen much of in Lutheranism. It is worthy of discussion.

Jon

 

[GKC]

I agree about Father K. He has provided a view which I have not seen much of in Lutheranism. It is worthy of discussion.

Jon

I have learned much from him, both here and elsewhere.

You, OTOH, from here, the same.

GKC

 

[JonNC]

I have learned much from him, both here and elsewhere.

You, OTOH, from here, the same.

GKC

And I much from you.

Jon

 

[pablope]

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.

Ok…got you.

I was referring to “how” the actual Real Presence occurs. That’s where we Lutherans generally disagree with our Roman Catholic friends.

 

[pablope]

[SIGN]Quote:
Originally Posted by JonNC View Post
So, Father, do you reject the Sacramental Union?[/SIGN]

Jon…do you agree with Father K here?

 

[JonNC]

Jon…do you agree with Father K here?

With due respect to Father K, no, and clearly neither do Lutheran theologians

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

That’s the historic definition, Father. Unless you can reference a Lutheran theologian who says differently, it seems virtually universal that Lutheran theologians do not see SU as consubstantiation, nor do they define it as you do.

(1) What has given Lutheran theologians the right to define what the word consubstantiation means?

(2) Yes, I have heard you state that Lutheran theologians don’t see consubstantiation as sacramental union. That doesn’t mean that they are right. It could just mean that they are inconsistent, or that they argue against a straw man. But you are wrong. Without outright embracing the idea of consubstantiation, Wolfhart Pannenberg maintains that there is no meaningful distinction between sacramental union and consubstantiation. See his , vol. 3Systematic Theology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark (1998): 296-297.

(3) Let’s take a look at the two links you posted. In the second one, from LCMS, it is said that consubstantiation means that “bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner.” That is not a definition I have ever heard from anyone until I became involved in this discussion thread, and it is contradicted by the first link you provided, from Theopedia. According to that article, consubstantiation “holds that during the sacrament the fundamental substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.” So which is it? Does consubstantiation mean that there is a ‘third substance’ or two substances, existing alongside one another? It cannot be both.

Instead of just repeating that sacramental union isn’t consubstantiation, could you explain what the difference is? Take as the starting point these two definitions:

Consubstantiation means that “during the sacrament the fundamental substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.” (Theopedia)

Sacramental union means that “in the Holy Supper the two substances [Lat. *substantiae, Ger. [zwei] Wesen], the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth.” (The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord)

Where is the difference between the two? You cannot say that it is because the former uses philosophy. When the authors of the Formula of Concord decided to use the language it has used – that of substantia and Wesen – they chose to use philosophy.

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12155883](1) What has given Lutheran theologians the right to define what the word consubstantiation means?

Why would they have used a definition, over 450 years, different than what they already knew it to be, what the Calvinists charged us of believing?

(2) Yes, I have heard you state that Lutheran theologians don’t see consubstantiation as sacramental union. That doesn’t mean that they are right. It could just mean that they are inconsistent, or that they argue against a straw man. But you are wrong. Without outright embracing the idea of consubstantiation, Wolfhart Pannenberg maintains that there is no meaningful distinction between sacramental union and consubstantiation. See his Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark (1998): 296-297.

All of them? Inconsistent? From Luther and Chemnitz to Krauth and Sasse? I am willing to look at Pannenberg’s view, but I certainly do not think the theologians in question have been inconsistent.

(3) Let’s take a look at the two links you posted. In the second one, from LCMS, it is said that consubstantiation means that “bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner.” That is not a definition I have ever heard from anyone until I became involved in this discussion thread, and it is contradicted by the first link you provided, from Theopedia. According to that article, consubstantiation “holds that during the sacrament the fundamental substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.” So which is it? Does consubstantiation mean that there is a ‘third substance’ or two substances, existing alongside one another? It cannot be both.

Both definitions have been used, part of the problem with consubstantiation in the first place. Historically, it predates the Reformation era, sometime s credited to Duns Scotus.

Instead of just repeating that sacramental union isn’t consubstantiation, could you explain what the difference is? Take as the starting point these two definitions:

Consubstantiation means that “during the sacrament the fundamental substance of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present.” (Theopedia)

Here is what Krauth says (I’ve already referenced the FC’s refutation of it) :

…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 charge that we hold a local inclusion, or Consubstantiation, is a calumny. The eating and drinking are not physical, but mystical and sacramental. An action is not necessarily figurative because it is not physical. [Charles Porterfield Krauth, The Conservative Reformation and Its Theology, (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2007) 768.]

SU does not signify a local co-existence (that’s what your definition of consub states). The eating and drinking are mystical and sacramental.

Sacramental union means that “in the Holy Supper the two substances [Lat. *substantiae

, Ger. [zwei] Wesen], the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth.” (The Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord)

Where is the difference between the two? You cannot say that it is because the former uses philosophy. When the authors of the Formula of Concord decided to use the language it has used – that of substantia and Wesen – they chose to use philosophy.

I certainly can say so, because as I have quoted, the FC does not intend a philosophical meaning. From the Wittenburg Concord:

“We deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, as we do also deny that the body and blood of Christ are locally included in the bread.” …The manduction is not a thing of the senses or of reason, but supernatural, mysterious, and incomprehensible. The presence of Christ in the supper is not of a physical nature, nor earthly, nor Capernaitish, and yet it is most true.”

Here again, not physical, nor earthly, etc.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Both definitions have been used, part of the problem with consubstantiation in the first place. Historically, it predates the Reformation era, sometime s credited to Duns Scotus.

These two definitions contradict. Only one of them can be correct.

I certainly can say so, because as I have quoted, the FC does not intend a philosophical meaning.

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’?

SU does not signify a local co-existence (that’s what your definition of consub states).

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’?

 

[benjohnson]

The last few pages have been fascinating. Thanks Jon and Father K.

Father K - perhaps if I could offer, that for myself and many Lutherans the description of consubstantiation and transubstantiation are fine as teaching tools, but should not be used as Dogma as they (because they are human descriptions and are not given to us by God) will fall short of the mystery.

So even if your find Lutherans (now and then) claiming that consubstantion is a reasonable description even if the definition is made to look like Sacramental Union - I hope you won’t find those same Lutherans claiming that any such description is Dogma.

 

[SteveVH]

… for myself and many Lutherans the description of consubstantiation and transubstantiation are fine as teaching tools, but should not be used as Dogma as they (because they are human descriptions and are not given to us by God) will fall short of the mystery.

Not when defined by an infallible magisterium who has received the authority to bind and loose.
This is the same magisterium who discerned the canon of Sacred Scripture which, it seems, all of Christianity accepts. Why should this be any different?

By the way, Transubstantiation is a doctrine, not a dogma. It is an explanation of the revealed truth (Dogma) that Christ is truly present and all Christians are obligated to believe it, whether they do or not.