If, as you said earlier, mingling consecrated elements with unconsecrated elements is avoided to prevent blessing the elements twice, why would Lutheran ministers bless the elements again a second time for the sick?As for the sick and shut ins our priest takes a small amount of the elements and delivers a short homily and blesses the elements there and communes the sick and the shut ins there so that nothing is left over. But the purpose of this is not because the blessing may wear off but because the desire is that the holy will not be profaned by being placed with the common.
Let me clarify that I am not teaching that Lutherans deny the Real Presence during the service. That said, Lutherans teach a doctrine of “sacramental union” which is contrary to transubstantiation. Sacramental union, defined in the Formula of Concord, is the belief that the bread an wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ (as Catholics believe), but rather the body and blood of Christ are united sacramentally to the bread and wine, which do not lose the essence of bread and wine. The FOC teaches that Christ is substantially present but that it is in a “sacramental union” with the substance of bread and wine.OK first off Luther cut the knot about transubstantiation. There is no formula taught about trans or con substantiation in my synod (which is not WELS/LCMS/ELCA btw) but that since Christ has spoken these elements to be His Body and Blood they therefore are. The Lord has spoken and thus it is so.
So do not mix teaching against transubstantiation (which Lutherans do not teach) with teachings about the actual presence (which Lutherans do teach). So what is being said in 107-108 in the FOC is that those elements in the pyx which have not been blessed on the Altar are not the Body and the Blood. That is what they mean when they are speaking of those elements being apart from the Sacrament. They don’t mean once they are carried out the Church the blessed elements cease to be the Body and Blood they mean that simply adding more elements to the blessed elements apart from the Sacrament does not automatically make those elements also blessed.
In other words it the words of institution spoken by Christ that makes the Sacrament the Sacrament not the mere presence of bread and wine. But no orthodox Lutheran that I know of (and again my Synod is small) would teach that once consecrated the elements lose their blessing or cease to be holy because they have left the building of the Church.
I have heard of this practiced in Catholic Churches as well, but I have never seen it in person.Some Lutheran congregations use the practice of placing unconsecrated hosts in a container on a small table just inside the nave. Those planning to take holy Communion place a host on a large paten with tongs as they enter the church. It provides the pastor with a pretty close number of how many are to be communed. Also a host can be divided into small portions if there are more communicants than expected.
Don’t stop at 37, though. Continuing:Let me clarify that I am not teaching that Lutherans deny the Real Presence during the service. That said, Lutherans teach a doctrine of “sacramental union” which is contrary to transubstantiation. Sacramental union, defined in the Formula of Concord, is the belief that the bread an wine are not transformed into the body and blood of Christ (as Catholics believe), but rather the body and blood of Christ are united sacramentally to the bread and wine, which do not lose the essence of bread and wine. The FOC teaches that Christ is substantially present but that it is in a “sacramental union” with the substance of bread and wine.
*
For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated*; just as the expression, Verbum caro factum est, The Word was made flesh John 1:14 ], is repeated and explained by the equivalent expressions: The Word dwelt among us; likewise Col 2:9 ]: In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; likewise Acts 10:38 ]: God was with Him; likewise 2 Cor. 5:19 ]: God was in Christ, and the like; namely, that the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but the two natures, unchanged, are personally united. [These phrases repeat and declare the expression of John, above mentioned, namely, that by the incarnation the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but that the two natures without confusion are personally united.] 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.
-Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord vii.35-37
This is why the Lutheran doctrine has been called “consubstantiation” or “impanation” by others, although Lutherans do not call it that. I agree with you that Lutherans do not deny the Real Presence in the sacrament.
I don’t think your reading of FOC 7.108 is correct. Remember that this passage is condemning Catholic (or “papistic”) doctrine. Catholics do not enclose unconsecrated bread in a pyx, nor do they carry unconsecrated bread about for display and adoration. Neither do Catholics believe that mingling unconsecrated bread with consecrated bread consecrated the unconsecrated bread or that bread becomes the Body of Christ by virtue of inhabiting a pyx or monstrance. Because this is a rejection of Catholic doctrine, it must be understood as a rejection of the Catholic belief that the Christ is present in the Eucharist apart from the administration of the Holy Supper, which the FOC seems to confine to a single service. Refer back to my first post where I have the full paragraph excerpted.
- Thus, Lutherans and Catholics are able jointly to conclude, »Therefore
regarding Scripture and tradition, Lutherans and Catholics are in such
an extensive agreement that their different emphases do not of them-
selves require maintaining the present division of the churches. In this
area, there is unity in reconciled diversity« (ApC 448).82
76 Chapter IV
OK just to answer this question first. What is done in my synod is all the bread and wine which is blessed is consumed. And so when the priest goes to shut ins or the sick he takes with him unconsecrated wine and bread (just a very small amount and two wafers) and blessed the elements there by the words institution. So that no elements are ever blessed twice.Thanks for your comments, Bogey. I have just a few criticisms.
If, as you said earlier, mingling consecrated elements with unconsecrated elements is avoided to prevent blessing the elements twice, why would Lutheran ministers bless the elements again a second time for the sick?
Jon, that is a summary, not a clarification. The FOC is very clear that it is trying to make a metaphysical statement. The point of the term sacramental union is that there is a union of Christ’s body with the bread in opposition to the Catholic teaching that the bread is transformed into the body of Christ. When the confessions speak of bread after consecration, they mean the true substance of bread bread (with which, in which and under which is Christ’s body), not Christ’s body under the appearance of bread. This is what Luther wrote in the Smalcald Articles (3.6.5).Don’t stop at 37, though. Continuing:
The intention of Sacramental Union is never to express something metaphysical. the clarification is clear: we receive and accept Christ’s words, that the bread is His body, and the wine is His blood, not next to, or mixed with, or becoming a third substance from the two, as consubstantiation teaches in a metaphysical construct. From my recollection of reading the confessions, everywhere where it is mentioned regarding the presence of bread and wine, it is clarified that the bread and wine are the body and blood. And referencing Justin adds even greater clarity.
- Although this union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine is not a personal union, as that of the two natures in Christ, but as Dr. Luther and our theologians, in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement [Formula of Concord] in the year 1536 and in other places call it sacramentatem unionem, that is, a sacramental union, by which they wish to indicate that, although they also employ the formas: in pane, sub pane, cum pane, that is, these distinctive modes of speech: in the bread, under the bread, with the bread, yet they have received the words of Christ properly and as they read, and have understood the proposition, that is, the words of Christ’s testament: Hoc est corpus meum, This is My body, not as a figuratam propositionem, but inusitatam (that is, not as a figurative, allegorical expression or comment, but as an unusual expression).* 39] For thus Justin says: This we receive not as common bread and common drink; but as Jesus Christ, our Savior, through the Word of God became flesh, and on account of our salvation also had flesh and blood, so we believe that the food blessed by Him through the Word and prayer is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. 40] Likewise Dr. Luther also in his Large and especially in his last Confession concerning the Lord’s Supper with great earnestness and zeal defends the very form of expression which Christ used at the first Supper.
We speak of bread and wine, body and blood in the same way Paul does. No would would accuse St. Paul of teaching consubstantiation. We don’t teach it either.
You’re quoting from the wrong section (the relation of Scripture and Tradition, which is a topic for a different thread), although it does say something similar about the real presence: “The question of the reality of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper is not a matter of controversy between Catholics and Lutherans.” All this is saying that Lutherans and Catholics believe in the real presence (i.e. a substantial presence), but the way in which they believe that Christ is “really present” is different.The Lutheran-Catholic Commission on Unity proclaims that Lutherans and Catholics believe in the Real Presence as non-church dividing.
Your synod’s practice sounds in line with traditional Lutheran practice.OK just to answer this question first. What is done in my synod is all the bread and wine which is blessed is consumed. And so when the priest goes to shut ins or the sick he takes with him unconsecrated wine and bread (just a very small amount and two wafers) and blessed the elements there by the words institution. So that no elements are ever blessed twice.
As to the blending of elements I have personally seen the Catholic Priest take the elements from the pyx bless them and distribute the sacrament and then return what is unused to the pyx so that I cannot imagine it would be avoidable to not bless the same elements twice. Before I responded I read the paragraphs in question in my BOC and viewed them based on the practice I have witnessed in the Latin Rite Church that my wife attends. Again, I freely admit I am a sample of one and maybe I did not see what I thought I saw or misunderstood what I did see, I am not perfect or all knowing certainly.
The synod to which I currently belong is called the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America. I do not however think I will be a part of it much longer as they have a much narrower understanding of those to whom the Gospel should be preached than I do. I understand they want to preserve the faithfulness of Christ’s Sacrament but they tend to extend this to a legalistic understanding of who can even hear the preached word of the Gospel. And “How shall they believe if they do not hear?”
God Bless
Its both a summary and a clarification. The intention is not to express a metaphysical construct, but to refute the metaphysical construct, Transubstantiation in particular.=QNDNNDQDCE;11634026]Jon, that is a summary, not a clarification. The FOC is very clear that it is trying to make a metaphysical statement. The point of the term sacramental union is that there is a union of Christ’s body with the bread in opposition to the Catholic teaching that the bread is transformed into the body of Christ. When the confessions speak of bread after consecration, they mean the true substance of bread bread (with which, in which and under which is Christ’s body), not Christ’s body under the appearance of bread. This is what Luther wrote in the Smalcald Articles (3.6.5).
Again, always spoken with the reference that, as Luther says at the beginning of this article: Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread.
He is only saying it in the same way Paul does. He even makes reference to Paul in this regard. why should we deny bread and wine when Paul does not, is the point. Every where bread and wine are mentioned, it is always in the context of bread and wine ARE body and blood, and usually referencing Paul’s use of the two sets of terms interchangeably.It is clear from the context that Luther is saying there remains the substance of bread in the Lord’s Supper. The Formula of Concord pounds in this point in greater detail, not only affirming that the essence of bread remains, but attacking the idea of “accidents without a subject” as a philosophical absurdity and making other clear metaphysical statements.
I agree that Justin’s words are not compatible with substance and accidents. The Fathers didn’t speak in Aristotelian terms He is saying that the bread and wine are the body and blood. And through every part of the confessions, from Augsburg and the Apology to the FofC, this is the point; we believe teach and confess that, as Melanchthon writes: *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. *The Justin quotation is not incompatible with the idea that the substance of bread remains. In fact, Calvinists and others who deny the real presence often seize upon this to defend their own doctrine. They interpret the phrase “common bread” as indicating that it is consecrated (as in set apart for a holy use) bread, but still just bread. A Calvinist could say they receive the bread as Jesus Christ because they teach that they feast on Christ “spiritually” in the sacrament. The fact that it says “is the body and blood” immediately following is no matter because Christ’s own words of institution in the Gospels had no sway over them either. I’m not saying that Justin was a Calvinist, only offering a different perspective. You can see how Justin’s words (such as “common bread”) could be used to support a position of sacramental union rather than transubstantiation, although transubstantiation is another possible reading of his words.
Both, but we don’t teach a local co-presence, which is what is required under consubstantiation: From RofCAlso, consubstantiation is not usually the conceived of as the union of Christ and bread in one substance, which I guess would be a proper “impanation.” Usually, it is used to describe the teaching that the substance of Christ exists together with (or “in, with and under” if you will) the substance of the bread.
the bread IS the body of Christ. It isn’t next to, or mixed with, etc. Clearly, there is no consubstantiation, Transubstantiation, or Impanation here.They confess, according to the words of Irenaeus, that in this Sacrament there are two things, a heavenly and an earthly. Accordingly, they hold and teach that with the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, offered, and received. And although they believe in no transubstantiation, that is, an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, nor hold that the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread localiter, that is, locally, or are otherwise permanently united therewith apart from the use of the Sacrament, yet they concede that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. [that when the bread is offered, the body of Christ is at the same time present, and is truly tendered]. 15]For apart from the use, when the bread is laid aside and preserved in the sacramental vessel [the pyx], or is carried about in the procession and exhibited, as is done in popery, they do not hold that the body of Christ is present.
I would agree. The 1978 dialogue statement says it better, regarding whether or not our different expressions constitute a Church-dividing difference.You’re quoting from the wrong section (the relation of Scripture and Tradition, which is a topic for a different thread), although it does say something similar about the real presence: “The question of the reality of the presence of Jesus Christ in the Lord’s Supper is not a matter of controversy between Catholics and Lutherans.” All this is saying that Lutherans and Catholics believe in the real presence (i.e. a substantial presence), but the way in which they believe that Christ is “really present” is different.
Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.
In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.
The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.
JonThe ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation 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 occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).
The doctrine of “consubstantiation” does not necessitate a local presence (which both Lutherans and Catholics reject). Taken most broadly, it is simply the doctrine the substance of the bread exists together with the substance of the body of Christ. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes in its article on consubstantiation, “How the two substances can coexist is variously explained.” Consubstantiation need not imply that the two substances exist together in identical modes.Both, but we don’t teach a local co-presence, which is what is required under consubstantiation…
the bread IS the body of Christ. It isn’t next to, or mixed with, etc. Clearly, there is no consubstantiation, Transubstantiation, or Impanation here.
I agree that if your were to look at the confessions by themselves that it looks like we Lutherans are playing at the same word-smithing that we pretend makes us so upset with the Catholic Dogma of Transubstantiation.Bogeydogg, that is an interesting perspective, and both sides would agree to what you are saying, but I don’t think it has any bearing on the question of transubstantiation vs. sacramental union. The problem from the Catholic perspective is that the Lutherans did formulate their doctrine according to an Aristotelian construct, and a problematic one. The dispute is over what Christ meant when he said, “This is my body.” Did he mean it simply as transubstantiation holds? Or did he mean “this is not merely bread, but also my body?”
I entirely disagree. The most precise, clearest statements on the real presence are Christ’s own words, “This is my body…”=QNDNNDQDCE;11636865]Jon, the problem I am seeing with your approach is that you are attempting to use statements that are less precise to clarify statements that are more precise. For example, we could not take the simple statement of the Augsburg Confession, which says “the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present” (compatible with transubstantiation), and use that to nullify the statements of the Formula of Concord that the substance of bread remains in a union with the substance of Christ’s body (incompatible with transubstantiation).
Perhaps, but the issue of the existence or not of "substances or accidents is what the confessions specifically refers to as “sophistical”. Separating the refutation of Transub. from a declaring what we believe needs to be done.The doctrine of “consubstantiation” does not necessitate a local presence (which both Lutherans and Catholics reject). Taken most broadly, it is simply the doctrine the substance of the bread exists together with the substance of the body of Christ. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes in its article on consubstantiation, “How the two substances can coexist is variously explained.” Consubstantiation need not imply that the two substances exist together in identical modes.
Well, it is wrong because to say so, again, requires the use of the metaphysical construct, which is not the Lutheran approach.As for what Lutherans do not believe, they do not believe that Christ’s body is present in the bread like water in a sponge (as I have heard Calvinists allege), which I suppose would be a kind of local presence. Nor is Christ united hypostatically with the bread, which would be absurd, and is contradictory to the Lutheran confessions. Nonetheless, the Formula of Concord does state the the distinct substance of bread and the substance of Christ’s body are simultaneously present in the Lord’s Supper. That is why sacramental union has been (not wrongly, in my opinion) referred to by non-Lutherans as a form of consubstantiation.
The only premise presented, the only intention meant by Sacramental Union is “this is my body”. This, the confessions clearly say and confess.One problem with this is that this doctrine is justified in opposition to transubstantiation by analogy to the Incarnation. However, it is evident that the Eucharist is not perfectly analogous to the Incarnation. Even Lutherans acknowledge that the Lord’s Supper is not a hypostatic union. According to sacramental union, the substances exist together. If, therefore, Lutherans insisted on the analogy to the Incarnation, this would lead to the conclusion that Lutherans held to a Nestorian christology. However, since Nestorianism is repudiated at length in the Formula of Concord (in the section immediately following the section on the Holy Supper no less), this is an absurd conclusion, suggesting that the premise is flawed.
On the first, you are too kind, one the second you are quite right!As a small aside, thanks JonNC for helping me understand my Lutheran faith so much better, and that you good Catholics for putting up with us Lutherans on your forum - and for also helping my grow in faith.