Hi Gabriel,
No Lutheran reformer, or theologian since, that I am aware of, including Luther and Chemnitz, ever claimed a belief in consubstantiation, for the reason that Salusa so well stated.
Jon
Hey
Greetings Jon;
Consubstantiation was introduced long before it was defeated by the fourth Lateran Council 1215 with Transubstantiation.
A protestant reformer in the very beginning Wycliffe is the one who carried the consubstantiation teaching. Wycliffe taught “When God was joined to human nature, the presence of the divinity did not destroy the humanity. Likewise the body of Christ is indeed present in the bread without destroying it…The body of Christ is present in communion. But so is the bread”.
Another reformer John Huss took up all of Wycliffe’s protestant views opposing the Catholic Church. Although John Huss’s main disagreement was that communion should always be given in both species.
What is telling is that Wycliffe’s followers in the “Lollards” took with them Wycliffe’s teaching throughout protestantism well into the 16th century.
It could be the mixture of these Lollard’s in protestant circles kept the heretical teaching of Consubstantiation alive among the different protestant circles, but that’s my opinion.
Later we find Luther defending the already condemned teachings of John Huss in a debate who followed Wycliffe’s views. But it is not clear if Consubstantiation was defended by Luther.
Here is a quote from a non-catholic (protestant) author Wayne Jackson of the Christian Courier.
“Consubstantiation” is a term commonly applied to the Lutheran concept of the communion supper, though some modern Lutheran theologians reject the use of this term because of its ambiguity. The expression, however, is generally associated with Luther. The idea is that in the communion, the body and blood of Christ, and the bread and wine, coexist in union with each other. “Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337). Wycliffe Triology IV, 6,10, Luther (Walch XX 1288)
We find historical writers attributing Consubstantiation to Martin Luther’s view of the Eucharist when the species of bread and wine remain as bread and wine along with the presence of Jesus body without ever having to use the word Consubstantiation.
Salusa’s quote; “Sacramental Union is a doctrine of the real presence that doesn’t resort to Aristotelian substance and accidents, but still asserts that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ in with and under the bread and wine.”
Sacramental Union? Is that the official term used in Lutheran doctrine to describe the RP? That sounds very Catholic but Iam not sure if it contains the same Sacramental understanding of the Greek “anamnesis” derived and supported by the Hebrew understanding of zikaron. Simplifed when and what ever God’s presence touches a full substantial Change has occurred to the subject.
The description Salusa applied to Sacramental Union ="the Body and Blood of Christ
in with and under the bread and wine" Does not appear to be defining a sacramental change has occurred because the presence remains co-habiting in with and under ( the existing species) of the bread and wine.
I have read some late theological understanding’s between our theologians and I agree we are gaining ground to better understanding of each one’s position and I don’t refute a Lutheran’s faith in the RP, what is being revealed here is each one’s understanding from a lay person’s faith in the RP and differences.
What is your take on Aristotles definition of Transubstantiation and the Catholic Church’s definition of Transubstantiation? It is suggested that the Catholic Church holds to Aristotles definition of transubstantiation which the Church never does.
Peace be with you
