Lutheran belief - Sacramental Union (not Consubstantiation)

[EvangelCatholic]

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.

Yes, even Catholics concede that sacramental concepts are not intended as an explanation of this most holy Mystery.

The concept of transubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occur
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int…eucharist.html

 

[KjetilK]

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.

Yet when the council Fathers of Nicea used philosophy it was OK?

 

[benjohnson]

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.

If that’s how it’s put - then it won’t be a barrier to re-unification between Catholics and Lutherans.

 

[benjohnson]

Yet when the council Fathers of Nicea used philosophy it was OK?

Personally, I don’t see human philosophy in the Creed of Nicea - just a re-presentation of God given truth. I’ll admit that I could be jaded, so I invite correction.

 

[benjohnson]

Yes, even Catholics concede that sacramental concepts are not intended as an explanation of this most holy Mystery.

I agree that this is currently the case. However, language in the past was much stronger - with Luther railing against the perceived necessity of belief in the language of Transubstantiation:

“It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist”

 

[KjetilK]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousian

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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.

83] However, this blessing, or the recitation of the words of
institution of Christ alone does not make a sacrament if the entire
action of the Supper, as it was instituted by Christ, is not
observed (as when the consecrated bread is not distributed,
received, and partaken of, but is enclosed, sacrificed, or carried
about), but the command of Christ, This do (which embraces the
entire action or administration in this Sacrament, 84] that in an
assembly of Christians bread and wine are taken, consecrated,
distributed, received, eaten, drunk, and the Lord’s death is shown
forth at the same time) must be observed unseparated and inviolate,
as also St. Paul places before our eyes the entire action of the
breaking of bread or of distribution and reception, 1 Cor. 10, 16.

85] [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. 86] 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.

The use of the sacrament is to “take and eat”. Of the use once the divine service is complete, there is no more sacrament because of the use of the sacrament is over, per the Epitome.

No command to “take and eat and save some of me for later”. Or “take and eat and save some for a glass box so folks can stare at me”. No, the use is take and eat, once all have eaten, there is no more sacrament.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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.
Lutherans need to see these things, and be reminded of the truth of our faith.

Jon

IIRC that “receptionism” is the teaching that the real presence starts at our reception of it. Or that our reception causes the real presence. This I don’t believe in. I believe the real presence starts at consecration. But also that “nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ”. Therefore when the use is over that is take and eat, there is no more sacrament. Doesn’t mean we shoudnt treat the elements respectfully, but there is no reason to believe that the Eucharist stays consecrated after the use. In fact, when we visit the infirm and shut ins, we always re consecrate the Eucharist.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

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.

I am arguing that there is no reason to believe that the Eucharist stays consecrated after the use of the sacrament. Per the Eptome of the FC. Because “nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ”.

IIRC Melanchthon backtracked on that teaching.

 

[steido01]

IIRC that “receptionism” is the teaching that the real presence starts at our reception of it. Or that our reception causes the real presence. This I don’t believe in. I believe the real presence starts at consecration. But also that “nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ”. Therefore when the use is over that is take and eat, there is no more sacrament. Doesn’t mean we shoudnt treat the elements respectfully, but there is no reason to believe that the Eucharist stays consecrated after the use. In fact, when we visit the infirm and shut ins, we always re consecrate the Eucharist.

Whew. Glad to see you are not a Receptionist.

As a Lutheran, I agree that “nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ.” But I do not understand this to mean that Christ presence somehow departs from the Bread and Wine (nor do I see how one can come to this conclusion given the Tradition of the church catholic, in whose light the Reformers wrote the FC).

The “use instituted by Christ” refers to the intention of the consecrated Bread and Wine; this line was written to combat the Roman abuse of consecrating elements solely for use in adoration without ever intending to properly administer the Sacrament to the congregation. In short, for Lutherans the ‘Sacramental act’ continues until the entire Body and Blood have either been 1)consumed or 2)properly disposed. Christ doesn’t magically leave when the Mass is ended.

I pray a WELSer like yourself will forgive me for sharing LCMS history here , but I think you and some in your Synod (and many in my Synod, too) have been taught wrongly on this issue by two otherwise outstanding LCMS theologians. Pieper and Walther appear to have followed the Phillipists’ lead, and it’s definitely an error. gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com/2011/10/luther-and-chemnitz-vs-walther-and.html

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Whew. Glad to see you are not a Receptionist.

As a Lutheran, I agree that “nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ.” But I do not understand this to mean that Christ presence somehow departs from the Bread and Wine (nor do I see how one can come to this conclusion given the Tradition of the church catholic, in whose light the Reformers wrote the FC).

The “use instituted by Christ” refers to the intention of the consecrated Bread and Wine; this line was written to combat the Roman abuse of consecrating elements solely for use in adoration without ever intending to properly administer the Sacrament to the congregation. In short, for Lutherans the ‘Sacramental act’ continues until the entire Body and Blood have either been 1)consumed or 2)properly disposed. Christ doesn’t magically leave when the Mass is ended.

Ok. I can get behind that.

 

[benjohnson]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoousian

I would say that the Trinity is a ‘fleshing out’ of the Gospel, but doesn’t tread any new ground.

Whereas, the Gospel is silent on the details of the Body and Blood of our Lord and therefore we can’t extend without relying entirely on human reasoning.

 

[SteveVH]

I would say that the Trinity is a ‘fleshing out’ of the Gospel, but doesn’t tread any new ground.

Whereas, the Gospel is silent on the details of the Body and Blood of our Lord and therefore we can’t extend without relying entirely on human reasoning.

Or without relying entirely on human reason guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

 

[SteveVH]

If that’s how it’s put - then it won’t be a barrier to re-unification between Catholics and Lutherans.

A doctrine is as free from error as a dogma. It is simply a definitive teaching of a divinely revealed truth.

 

[pablope]

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.

And how abiOut SU? Isn’t this a human construct too? Or do you not consider it a human construct?

 

[pablope]

I agree that this is currently the case. However, language in the past was much stronger - with Luther railing against the perceived necessity of belief in the language of Transubstantiation:

“It is not the doctrine of transubstantiation which is to be believed, but simply that Christ really is present at the Eucharist”

Ben…can you cite in the teaching of transsub where it denies the real presence of Christ?

 

[benjohnson]

And how abiOut SU? Isn’t this a human construct too? Or do you not consider it a human construct?

Yes - As I understand it, it could be argued that SU is indeed yet another attempt to ‘describe’ what it going on - but we’re not bound to profess is - what we profess is that we ‘gnaw’ (trogo) on the true Body and Blood of our Lord.

If pressed for details we can offer up SU or other theories with the understanding that the Sacrament is a mystery of faith.

 

[pablope]

Yes - As I understand it, it could be argued that SU is indeed yet another attempt to ‘describe’ what it going on - but we’re not bound to profess is - what we profess is that we ‘gnaw’ (trogo) on the true Body and Blood of our Lord.

If pressed for details we can offer up SU or other theories with the understanding that the Sacrament is a mystery of faith.

SU is in your confessions…you are not bound to it?

 

[benjohnson]

Ben…can you cite in the teaching of transsub where it denies the real presence of Christ?

On the contrary - Transubstantiation is a bulwark against those that denied the Body and Blood of Christ - especially around the time of Trent. If viewed in that light, Lutherans should not have too much trouble with it.

The Lutheran objection is that while Transubstantiation is fine for fighting heresy and for teaching, it falls short of the Mystery.

 

[MaryT777]

IIRC that “receptionism” is the teaching that the real presence starts at our reception of it. Or that our reception causes the real presence. This I don’t believe in. I believe the real presence starts at consecration. But also that “nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ”. Therefore when the use is over that is take and eat, there is no more sacrament. Doesn’t mean we shoudnt treat the elements respectfully, but there is no reason to believe that the Eucharist stays consecrated after the use. In fact, when we visit the infirm and shut ins, we always re consecrate the Eucharist.

Does a pastor always reconsecrate the Eucharist then?
Mary.