Lutheran belief - Sacramental Union (not Consubstantiation)

[KjetilK]

I would contend that the term consubstantiation does include those things - local co-existence, local inclusion, etc. It is exactly what we were charged of, using those terms, and exactly what Lutheran theologians have argued against for centuries.
Here is a Reformed definition, from Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms

But why let the Reformed decide how the term is to be defined? The word predates the Reformation, and those who used it did not mean by it a ‘local inclusion.’ I do no let the Reformed dictate how I use language, and I do not allow them to redefine it for me. Why would you?

At no point, ever, in Lutheran history, is the term consubstantiation, or its meaning, reflected here by Muller, or any other meaning proposed anywhere, accepted as Lutheran teaching.

Of course if people do not use words properly, this will happen. But consubstantiation, as that word was first defined, does not mean ‘local inclusion.’

Whether or not SU is compatible with Transubstantiation seems to be a point of dialogue, and any absolutism on the point would be up to our mutual leaderships.

No, it will be up to everyone who know how reality works. It is a question of reality, existence, and language (or philosophy, for short). SU states that in the consecrated sacrament, the bread and wine are “present together” with the body and blood of Christ (thus holding that the substances of bread and wine remain), while transubstantiation holds that the bread and wine are transformed, leaving only their appearances or accidents (thus holding that the substances of bread and wine do not remain). These two positions are mutually exclusive.

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12174657]But why let the Reformed decide how the term is to be defined? The word predates the Reformation, and those who used it did not mean by it a ‘local inclusion.’ I do no let the Reformed dictate how I use language, and I do not allow them to redefine it for me. Why would you?

I’m not sure they are the ones who redefined the term consubstantiation, as it was used in the centuries before the Reformation. What I am trying to do is express the fact that what the Lutheran Church has always taught is not that.

Of course if people do not use words properly, this will happen. But consubstantiation, as that word was first defined, does not mean ‘local inclusion.’

Apparently people like Gerhard thought it did, or thought that this was what was expressed against them. And Muller , in his definition, seems to lend credence to their reaction to it. I share that reaction.

No, it will be up to everyone who know how reality works. It is a question of reality, existence, and language (or philosophy, for short). SU states that in the consecrated sacrament, the bread and wine are “present together” with the body and blood of Christ (thus holding that the substances of bread and wine remain), while transubstantiation holds that the bread and wine are transformed, leaving only their appearances or accidents (thus holding that the substances of bread and wine do not remain). These two positions are mutually exclusive.

And again, Krauth puts this to rest.

…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.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

SU states that in the consecrated sacrament, the bread and wine are “present together” with the body and blood of Christ (thus holding that the substances of bread and wine remain), while transubstantiation holds that the bread and wine are transformed, leaving only their appearances or accidents (thus holding that the substances of bread and wine do not remain). These two positions are mutually exclusive.

As I’ve shown, Father, there are Lutheran and Catholic theologians who disagree with this conclusion. Even Luther did not see them as mutually exclusive.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

I’m not sure they are the ones who redefined the term consubstantiation, as it was used in the centuries before the Reformation. What I am trying to do is express the fact that what the Lutheran Church has always taught is not that.

But if consubstantiation just mean that the substance of bread/wine is present together with the substance of Christ’s body/blood, then the FC does teach consubstantiation. That they don’t want to use the name doesn’t change the reality. To use a banal US example, I could say that I didn’t like pop, because I liked soda. That doesn’t mean I don’t like pop. They are the same. And consubstantiation and SU are also the same.

As I’ve shown, Father, there are Lutheran and Catholic theologians who disagree with this conclusion. Even Luther did not see them as mutually exclusive.

But SU, as defined in the FC, is contrary to transubstantiation. If these theologians and Luther thought otherwise, they are/were wrong. Last time I checked, the law of non-contradiction isn’t up for redefinition.

Instead of referencing other theologians, could you try to explain how you would reconcile SU, as defined in the FC, with transubstantiation? How, for example, would you reconcile the belief that the bread remains and does not remain at the same time? How would you reconcile the belief that the bread is transformed and not transformed at the same time? When you have done so, could you also show me how to draw a circular square?

Just to be clear, I believe in transubstantiation. But Confessio Augustana is ‘neutral’ here, though I would claim that it does favour transubstantiation, as it claims to represent “Scriptures…, the Church Catholic…, [and] the Church of Rome.” I reject the FC as a confession. That doesn’t mean I disagree with everything in it, it means that I do not regard it as binding on any level whatsoever.

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12174953]But if consubstantiation just mean that the substance of bread/wine is present together with the substance of Christ’s body/blood, then the FC does teach consubstantiation. That they don’t want to use the name doesn’t change the reality. To use a banal US example, I could say that I didn’t like pop, because I liked soda. That doesn’t mean I don’t like pop. They are the same. And consubstantiation and SU are also the same.

But consubstantiation speaks of substances together. That is not the intention of SU, as the Lutheran theologians have explained - not a local co-existence.

But SU, as defined in the FC, is contrary to transubstantiation. If these theologians and Luther thought otherwise, they are/were wrong. Last time I checked, the law of non-contradiction isn’t up for redefinition.

As defined by you, Father, meaning no disrespect. For me, there is no contradiction here, because while Transub. intends to use the metaphysical, SU does not. This is what Gerhard, Krauth, Sasse, etc all have said.

Instead of referencing other theologians, could you try to explain how you would reconcile SU, as defined in the FC, with transubstantiation? How, for example, would you reconcile the belief that the bread remains and does not remain at the same time? How would you reconcile the belief that the bread is transformed and not transformed at the same time? When you have done so, could you also show me how to draw a circular square?

From my own POV? I don’t see SU as metaphysical, so I view it in light of what is written, first, in scriptue - this [bread] is my body, etc., and by what is written in Augsburg and the Apology., for example, “that which is seen”. Augsburg says “Body and Blood of Christ are truly present”, Smalcald says “…bread and wine in the Supper **are **the true body and blood of Christ”. IOW, I can honestly agree with a change; it is not mere bread, it is the body of Christ. How it happens is a mystery beyond any attempts, any “substantiation”, any description humans can develop.
My point here isn’t a to-the-wall defense of SU, because I find SU unnecessary (the Apology is excellent in my opinion), but instead the description of it as consubstantiation is not what the reformers of the first or second generation intended.

Just to be clear, I believe in transubstantiation. But Confessio Augustana is ‘neutral’ here, though I would claim that it does favour transubstantiation, as it claims to represent “Scriptures…, the Church Catholic…, [and] the Church of Rome.” I reject the FC as a confession. That doesn’t mean I disagree with everything in it, it means that I do not regard it as binding on any level whatsoever.

Yes, you’ve explained that, and I respect that. And again, pushed to describe in metaphysical terms, I prefer Transubstantiation. IOW, for me Transub. is not a stumbling block.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

But why let the Reformed decide how the term is to be defined? The word predates the Reformation, and those who used it did not mean by it a ‘local inclusion.’ I do no let the Reformed dictate how I use language, and I do not allow them to redefine it for me. Why would you?

Of course if people do not use words properly, this will happen. But consubstantiation, as that word was first defined, does not mean ‘local inclusion.’

I don’t want to butt-in, but I have to ask this : do we all agree that the way a word was first defined isn’t always paramount?

History provides much evidence for that: e.g. “Methodist” was originally a pejorative, as was “Lutheran” and “Roman Catholic”. Conversely, a term that Eastern Catholics originally used proudly of themselves, to highlight their union with Rome, later became a pejorative applied to them by others.

 

[KjetilK]

But consubstantiation speaks of substances together.

And the formulation in the Formula of Concord’s Solid Declaration (SD VII,37) also speak og substances together: “[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.”

From my own POV?

Yes, with arguments.

I don’t see SU as metaphysical

Therein lies the issue. When the words substantia (Latin) and Wesen [German] are used (as we see in SD VII,37), it IS about metaphysics. To see how these terms are defined in the Formula of Concord, see the Epitome (EP I,23-25):

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.

As we see here, these words are defined in their normal way, as part of a metaphysic. Then these words are used in the Solid Declaration (SD VII,37).

Every time a person makes a statement or an argument concerning, for instance, reality, existence or language, he is making a philosophical statement or argument. And I honestly do not see the problem with this. Philosophy isn’t ‘sorcery.’ Every time you reason from a premise (e.g. Christ said “this is my body” and “this is my blood”) to a conclusion (e.g. 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), you are doing philosophy. And when the conclusion in question has to do with reality or existence, it IS a metaphysical statement.

How it happens is a mystery beyond any attempts, any “substantiation”, any description humans can develop.

And this is, I think, were the issue lies. Neither transubstantiation nor consubstantiation are trying to explain how it happens. It is merely saying what is happening. Transubstantiation is saying that the substances change (but not how they change), consubstantiation is saying that the substances remain, but are ‘sacramentally united’ to Christ (but not how they are united).

My point here isn’t a to-the-wall defense of SU, because I find SU unnecessary (the Apology is excellent in my opinion), but instead the description of it as consubstantiation is not what the reformers of the first or second generation intended.

And my point is that that is merely semantics.

 

[KjetilK]

I don’t want to butt-in, but I have to ask this : do we all agree that the way a word was first defined isn’t always paramount?

History provides much evidence for that: e.g. “Methodist” was originally a pejorative, as was “Lutheran” and “Roman Catholic”. Conversely, a term that Eastern Catholics originally used proudly of themselves, to highlight their union with Rome, later became a pejorative applied to them by others.

Yes, but that does not mean that a word looses its definition. The Reformed also claim that transubstantiation involves a ‘localised presence.’ That doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church must stop using the word because some Protestant doesn’t understand what he is talking about.

I say we, Roman Catholic and Lutherans, shouldn’t let us be bullied by the Calvinists.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Came across this comment of early Lutheran monstrance displays of the Sacrament.

In addition, Corpus Christi was commonly retained until about 1600, owing to its significant popularity in the Medieval period.[22]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgical_calendar_(Lutheran

 

[mackbrislawn]

A question. It seems that we speak of the bread and wine becoming Jesus’ body and blood. Wouldn’t it make more sense to reverse it and say Jesus’ body and blood become bread and wine? To put it that way seems to parallel the Incarnation better.

That is, if the Son of God could become incarnate in flesh and blood, why cannot He become incarnate in bread and wine?

 

[Tomster]

A question. It seems that we speak of the bread and wine becoming Jesus’ body and blood. Wouldn’t it make more sense to reverse it and say Jesus’ body and blood become bread and wine? To put it that way seems to parallel the Incarnation better.

That is, if the Son of God could become incarnate in flesh and blood, why cannot He become incarnate in bread and wine?

Just a question. Are you suggesting that there is some sort of hypostatic union between Jesus and the bread and wine?

 

[Tomster]

But if consubstantiation just mean that the substance of bread/wine is present together with the substance of Christ’s body/blood, then the FC does teach consubstantiation. That they don’t want to use the name doesn’t change the reality. To use a banal US example, I could say that I didn’t like pop, because I liked soda. That doesn’t mean I don’t like pop. They are the same. And consubstantiation and SU are also the same.

But SU, as defined in the FC, is contrary to transubstantiation. If these theologians and Luther thought otherwise, they are/were wrong. Last time I checked, the law of non-contradiction isn’t up for redefinition.

Instead of referencing other theologians, could you try to explain how you would reconcile SU, as defined in the FC, with transubstantiation? How, for example, would you reconcile the belief that the bread remains and does not remain at the same time? How would you reconcile the belief that the bread is transformed and not transformed at the same time? When you have done so, could you also show me how to draw a circular square?

Just to be clear, I believe in transubstantiation. But Confessio Augustana is ‘neutral’ here, though I would claim that it does favour transubstantiation, as it claims to represent “Scriptures…, the Church Catholic…, [and] the Church of Rome.” I reject the FC as a confession. That doesn’t mean I disagree with everything in it, it means that I do not regard it as binding on any level whatsoever.

Ah, so you do believe in transubstantiation. So did Luther. But only for the local churches in Italy at that time. I wonder why?

 

[Tomster]

Ah, so you do believe in transubstantiation. So did Luther. But only for the local churches in Italy at that time. I wonder why?

More specifically, “the local reformed churches in Italy at that time”.

 

[Stilldreamn]

This topic makes my head hurt.

I know this - Jesus said, “This is my Body” and “this is my Blood” and so it is. When I receive, whether I am perceiving “accidents” or “substance” - well, I can’t know that based on what I see and taste. Through faith, I trust in Jesus’ words about the Eucharist. It’s Him.

 

[Tomster]

This topic makes my head hurt.

I know this - Jesus said, “This is my Body” and “this is my Blood” and so it is. When I receive, whether I am perceiving “accidents” or “substance” - well, I can’t know that based on what I see and taste. Through faith, I trust in Jesus’ words about the Eucharist. It’s Him.

Well said. And so it is with us Catholics. “Mysterium Fidei”, “The mystery of Faith”

 

[GKC]

Well said. And so it is with us Catholics. “Mysterium Fidei”, “The mystery of Faith”

“Taste and touch and vision to discern Thee fail; Faith that comes by hearing, pierces through the veil. I believe whate’er the Son of God hath told. What the Truth hath spoken, that for truth I hold”.

GKC