That’s a fair critique - As far as the Eucharist, our confessional documents don’t end the debate with certainty. Lutherans are still debating and still falling into various theological traps - some quite silly, and we should appreciate correction.
But this very Lutheran debate is more evidence of our Lutheran assertion that Eucharist is a Holy Mystery.
That if German Lutherans can’t pin something down with a typical German taxonomy, and the whole Lutheran world still hasn’t over the years is really good news! There’s a Mystery here!
Catholics agree whole-heartedly that its a mystery! It’s certainly nothing other than a mystery that God could transform mere bread and wine into his very body and blood! As the Confession of Dositheus says,
Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.
From a close reading the Formula of Concord, I have to say that I think the Lutheran confessions stake out a very specific eucharistic doctrine which is as follows. The Christ becomes substantially present in the Lord’s Supper with the words of consecration uttered by the priest, not by a conversion of substance, but by a union of the substance of Christ’s body with the substance of the bread and the substance of Christ’s blood with the substance of the wine. This presence is not by a hypostatic union (as the Divine and human natures of Christ are united in a single Divine Person), nor by any kind of local presence, but nonetheless by a true formal presence, which is called sacramental union. The duration of the real presence of Christ in the bread and wine lasts from the consecration only to the end of the Holy Supper in which they are consecrated, for apart from the use instituted by Christ, the bread and wine contain nothing of a sacrament and Christ is not present.
While the Lutherans did not agree among themselves on all these points, I believe this is the compromise doctrine settled on in the Formula of Concord. This teaching is both “consecrationist” and “cessationist.” Lutherans beleive that the Scripture is the sole rule of faith, not the Confessions, but those Lutherans who teach that the Book of Concord is binding as a faithful exposition of Scripture are bound to its teachings. It is my personal opinion that Lutherans should back away from a dogmatic stance toward their confessions, since they use language which is uneccesarily inflammatory and will be an obstacle to dialogue and reunion. It also appears that the confessions are not a totally accurate representation of actual Lutheran beliefs. For example, the LCMS has historically been receptionist, which is repudiated by the confessions (and all the Lutheran posters on CAF for that matter). For another example, the majority of CAF Lutherans appear to approve the practice of reservation of the sacrament, which is contradicted by the principles of the Confession and the Lutheran tradition.
Despite lingering disagreements, we can all celebrate a common belief in many important doctrines, chief of which is the Real Presence.
Apologies for the broken link. Attempt number two:
helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html
I’m having difficulty with the direct link; you’ll have to scroll to the section pertaining to the Eucharist.
The document does say that the Orthodox agree for the most part with the Lutherans and the doctrine of sacramental union taught in the Formula of Concord. However, this is a complete repudiation of the Confession of Dositheus. I would say that the 1672 Pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalem has more weight and authority than the 2006 International Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission. This document also “takes sides” in that just as the Confession of Dositheus clearly took sides with the Catholic position in a very explicit and lengthy explanation, the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission rejects the Catholic position and sides with the Lutheran position of sacramental union (which is, in fact, a metaphysical explanation) just as explicitly. I guess we could look into the history of transubstantiation in Eastern Orthodoxy to decide what the traditional teaching is. I have not researched it very extensively, but my own judgment is that a rejection of the principle stems more from anti-Latin prejudice or at least a capitulation from former Orthodox teaching than authentic tradition.
