Lutherans and Consubstantiation?

[Postmodern]

I was told by a Protestant Minister that Lutherans do not beleive in Consubstantiation. I find this shocking as I have a small version of Luther’s teachings and he seems to think otherwise.

Any light to shed?

 

[Harpazo]

I was told by a Protestant Minister that Lutherans do not beleive in Consubstantiation. I find this shocking as I have a small version of Luther’s teachings and he seems to think otherwise.

Any light to shed?

Because there is no teaching authority for the Lutherans, they broke up into different sects over the centuries and believe different things than when Luther first started. Of course it’s because Luther didn’t have the correct interpretation and other Lutherans had to fix it for him.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[Jolly_Joe]

The Protestant was correct. While you can find cases where consubstantiation is mentioned, often that is in response to the limitation of Latin. Luther and Lutherans resisted precisely defining in metaphysical terms that which is not so defined by the bible.

Lutherans do believe in consubstantiation, they believe Jesus is consubstantially God and man. And they believe the Son is consubstantial with the Father.

But as far as concerning Communion it would be better to call it a sacramental union. The phrase commonly used says “in, under, and with” but people agains try to read that in precise metaphysical terms but the idea is exactly the opposite.

The Lord’s body and blood being really and truly present and the bread and wine still being present as well is not really consubstantiation which would imply some union that isn’t taught. If it is taken as only that then one could say it is consubstantiation but because it creates confusion because the term really includes more than that, it is usually avoided.

JJ

 

[TriuneUnity]

I was told by a Protestant Minister that Lutherans do not beleive in Consubstantiation. I find this shocking as I have a small version of Luther’s teachings and he seems to think otherwise.

Any light to shed?

We disagree with the term consubstantiation. This is a term that Phillip Melancthon, one of Luther’s supporters and a professor at the Wittenberg University, came up with to explain the mode of Christ’s presence. We reject the term for the same reason we reject the term Transubstantiation.

We do not believe the Real Presence can be explained with human reason and Aristotelian logic.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Because there is no teaching authority for the Lutherans, they broke up into different sects over the centuries and believe different things than when Luther first started. Of course it’s because Luther didn’t have the correct interpretation and other Lutherans had to fix it for him.

That is incorrect (and, I might add, your commentary is not helpful nor accurate, either). Luther never said, used, or even mentioned the word, “consubstantiation.”

Catholic scholar Duns Scotus, an Aristotelean and Scholastic, actually coined the word hundreds of years before Luther was even born. Scotus has mixed reviews among Catholic and Protestant theologians alike, but his work on Aristotle and Augustine is seminal.

All of this is basic historical sacramental theology 101. Consult the writings of Catholic scholars Schillebeeckx and Bouyer to read up on this stuff. Reading the Marburg Colloquy also tells us what Luther said about the Real Presence, as opposed to what people say Luther meant.

Officially, the Lutheran Church has denounced the term “consubstantiation” in explaining their belief in the Real Presence. The Real Presence simply cannot be so easily be quantified or explained.

 

[Harpazo]

That is incorrect (and, I might add, your commentary is not helpful nor accurate, either). Luther never said, used, or even mentioned the word, “consubstantiation.”

Catholic scholar Duns Scotus, an Aristotelean and Scholastic, actually coined the word hundreds of years before Luther was even born. Scotus has mixed reviews among Catholic and Protestant theologians alike, but his work on Aristotle and Augustine is seminal.

All of this is basic historical sacramental theology 101. Consult the writings of Catholic scholars Schillebeeckx and Bouyer to read up on this stuff. Reading the Marburg Colloquy also tells us what Luther said about the Real Presence, as opposed to what people say Luther meant.

Officially, the Lutheran Church has denounced the term “consubstantiation” in explaining their belief in the Real Presence. The Real Presence simply cannot be so easily be quantified or explained.

Which Lutheran church though, Luke? Are there not different factions of Lutheranism with their own characteristics and/or interpretations of Luther’s beliefs?

I agree that the Real Presence cannot be quantifed nor explained. The Catholic Church does not claim to do so, nor never has. They use paradoxical language in the Latin Church, which is to say it reveals a mystery, but does not attempt to explain it. Because as we all know, a mystery CANNOT be explained.

I’m sorry, but Bouyer and Schillebeeckx are not the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church. If you want to see what the Church teaches, the Catechism is a great place to start.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[O.S.Luke]

I doubt that you are sorry about anything you say, Andrew. Kindly keep your condescension to yourself.

Bouyer and Schillebeeckx are not the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church. If you want to see what the Church teaches, the Catechism is a great place to start.

I am well aware of what the Church teaches. I am also aware - and appreciative - of the work that was often behind what the church teaches.

Bouyer and Schillebeeckx are pre-eminent Catholic sacramental scholars, and their writings all have the imprimatur and nihil obstat on them. Where Bouyer is concerned, he has been quoted ad nauseam in official Vatican documents.

You are arrogantly presumptive about much, Andrew. Granted, you are young. But it’s not always an excuse.

O+

 

[Harpazo]

I doubt that you are sorry about anything you say, Andrew. Kindly keep your condescension to yourself.

I am well aware of what the Church teaches. I am also aware - and appreciative - of the work that was often behind what the church teaches.

Bouyer and Schillebeeckx are pre-eminent Catholic sacramental scholars, and their writings all have the imprimatur and nihil obstat on them. Where Bouyer is concerned, he has been quoted ad nauseam in official Vatican documents.

You are arrogantly presumptive about much, Andrew. Granted, you are young. But it’s not always an excuse.

O+

Again with the ad-hominem attacks, Luke. You yourself assume to much and we know what they say about assuming…

I don’t pay much attention to Latin Theologians, considering my theology is more Syriac and Byzantine and I am almost considered a Maronite. That is not to say that I don’t value brilliant scholastic Latin Catholics, but my theology and spirituality are no longer Latin (and have not been for quite some time) Why should I trust Schillebeeckx when he has been accused of making heretical statements? Besides, it is not as if they are defining anything new, you know this I’m sure.

We have Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition, Church fFthers, Encyclicals, Councils, Catechisms, etc. to bring us the faith. I would kindly appreciate it if you would not presume yourself. Simply because I am a Catholic, does not mean I will subscribe to every fringe theologian (Schillebeecks) that is Catholics

Shlomo d’Mshiho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[TriuneUnity]

Which Lutheran church though, Luke? Are there not different factions of Lutheranism with their own characteristics and/or interpretations of Luther’s beliefs?

There really aren’t factions. There are Confessional Lutherans and semi or non-confessional Lutherans. Every conservative orthodox Lutheran church body adheres to the same teachings on the Lord’s Supper.

 

[O.S.Luke]

You’re making my point, Andrew. I hope one day you learn humility and charity.

Peace be with you,

O+

 

[Lampo]

The Real Presence simply cannot be so easily be quantified or explained.

Consubstantiation or transubstantiation easily explains the mystery of the Eucharist? Not for me. A theological mystery is something so dense with Truth that our human brains cannot comprehend it.

 

[Steadfast]

Ironically enough, without actually being (necessarily) right about the Sacrament, the Lutherans here have “won” this argument by answering concisely and accurately while managing not to fall into triumphalist lip-smacking and sniping.

Like Harpazo.

It is usually best to go for information regarding a Church’s beliefs about any given doctrine to that church’s confessional statements…

Any search of the Book of Concord for a reference to “consubstantiation” will be fruitless. It isn’t there and for exactly the reasons our Lutheran brethren have given here: it represents an effort to force the discussion into terms entirely alien to what Lutherans believe to be a biblical understanding of the Sacrament.

 

[East_Anglican]

Lutherans do believe in Consubstantiation. it’s just that they prefer not to use the word.

 

[Steadfast]

Lutherans do believe in Consubstantiation. it’s just that they prefer not to use the word.

No.

They don’t.

While Lutherans will say that the Body and Blood are present “in, with and under” the elements of bread and wine, the word consubstantiation implies a substantial mingling alien to the Lutheran idea.

Again though, churches ought to be free to define their own doctrine without being told what they believe by others.

Protestants certainly catch hell when they try to tell Catholics what they (the Catholics) believe.

 

[East_Anglican]

No.

They don’t.

While Lutherans will say that the Body and Blood are present “in, with and under” the elements of bread and wine, the word consubstantiation implies a substantial mingling alien to the Lutheran idea.

Again though, churches ought to be free to define their own doctrine without being told what they believe by others.

Protestants certainly catch hell when they try to tell Catholics what they (the Catholics) believe.

So what you are saying is that at least three Lutheran priests I have spoken to lied to me about what they believe!

 

[Hesychios]

This is a great thread…

…really.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I’ve also had Lutherans tell me they believed in Consubstantiation (as opposed to Transubstantiation), and explained it as, while Catholics believe that after the Consecration the bread and wine no longer exist, only Jesus, Lutherans believe that the bread and wine are there along with Jesus, who is REALLY present, not just spiritually or symbolically. I’ve had LCMS, ELCA and WELs Lutherans all tell me that (unlike Episcopalians, who are allowed to believe whatever they want about the Euchartist-from the Catholic belief all they down to “it’s just a symbol”).

I frequent another Christian parenting board, and it’s actually nice to have Lutherans there “on my side” when the Baptists and fundamentalists start in with the bashing comments like “Jesus isn’t in a “wafer””, and “Baptizing babies just makes them wet, and they’ll have to be baptized again later after they “get saved””. They’re trying to bash Catholics, and it’s nice when the Lutheran’s speak up in defense of the Sacraments

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Steadfast]

So what you are saying is that at least three Lutheran priests I have spoken to lied to me about what they believe!

Well,

1. They don’t call them priests.
2. They were being, at least, “confessionally inconsistent” if not downright dishonest.
3. Personal testimonies like these are irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter what these imaginary “priests” said.

what Lutherans believe is not a secret needing witness corroboration, it’s all in the documents…

 

[Steadfast]

It needs to be noted that there are two kinds of Lutherans:

Confessional Lutherans and the Other Kind.

The Other Kind are liable to say just about anything.

The Confessional kind will usually be consistent with their confessional documents.

 

[JonNC]

So what you are saying is that at least three Lutheran priests I have spoken to lied to me about what they believe!

East,
Not knowing your conversations, my guess they weren’t lying to you. Consub is a word sometimes casually used by nonLutherans to explain what Lutherans believe. Often it is easier to explain something to someone using the language they may know.
So far as I’m concerned the best explanation of what Lutherans believe about the Eucharist is in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession thus:

The Tenth Article has been approved, in which 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

Jon