T
Thorolfr
Guest
But I still like you.
- Status
S
SteveVH
Guest
Fair enough. And what do you suppose the Copts believe concerning the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist?
S
SteveVH
Guest
Yes, I would have to agree with you here. And they share the same belief in the real presence.
Nestorian heretics booted out of Rome.
Another heretical sect.
K
KjetilK
Guest
The LCMS view, perhaps. I still maintain that sacramental union and consubstantiation is essentially, or substantially, the same.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Well, ātransubstantiationā do indeed use the broadly Aristotelian concepts of substance and accidents, but nowhere have the doctrine been bound to Aristotelian philosophy as such. But the interesting thing is that these broadly Aristotelian concepts are in use to explain both āconsubstantiationā and āsacramental unionā (in the Formula of Concord).
Some Lutherans, yes, but not all. I am a Lutheran priest, and I maintain that there is no practical difference between āconsubstantiationā and āsacramental union.ā But I lean more towards transubstantiation myself, and can do so because the Church of Norway, of which Iām part, never accepted the Formula of Concord.
S
steido01
Guest
Not just the LCMS. The WELS, ELS, SELK, SELC (Siberia) ā all the member churches of the International Lutheran Conference and all the member churches of the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference, even the ELCA (where it remains orthodox), adhere to the view I posted. It is only in the more liberal church bodies, like the European state/once-state churches, where leeway is afforded to move from the traditional Lutheran stance, as it is explained in Concord. You are the first knowledgeable Lutheran I have ever met who does not bristle at the term āConsubstantiation.ā I do appreciate reading your views, and I wonder if youāve read Pieperās Christian Dogmatics or J.T. Muellerās own version? The āTalkā portion of this Wiki is worth a read.
Similar words are often used, but not with the same intent. With Trans. and Cons., the words are used as if they actually explain the transformation. With SU, the theology meant by the use of similar words for simple description, is not congruent with the philosophical theory behind it. Cons. is just too rigid to fit the Confessional Lutheran āmysteryā quality of the Sacrament, as is Trans.
And therein lies the rub. How can you espouse a view that doesnāt take Augustana in its fullness? By omitting the full Book of Concord, youāre losing the context and intention of what makes Lutheranism, Lutheranism. Father, please donāt take offense at my question ā I am asking it sincerely. I just donāt understand how generally orthodox teachers like yourself remain part of communions that permit so much ambiguity.
K
KjetilK
Guest
Herein lies the problem.
Neither transubstantiation nor consubstantiation are philosophical āexplanations.ā You wonāt find a single theologian worth his salt, Catholic or otherwise, who thinks transubstantiation or consubstantiation explains the mystery of the Eucharist. Or that saying that the Father and the Son are āof one essenceā explains the mystery of the Incarnation. Yet here philosophical āexplanationsā is suddenly A-ok.
What transubstantiation says is simply that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christās body and blood, and that the accidents of bread and wine remains.
What consubstantiation says is simply that the substance of bread and wine remain, while the substance of Christās body and blood somehow exist together with these substances. That is ALL it says. Nothing more, nothing less.
No what does the Formula of Concord say? Well, it states that āin the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together.ā Can you explain the difference between saying that the substance of Christās body and blood exist together with the substance of bread and wine, and that āthe two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present togetherā? I see none.
And can you also explain the principal difference between the use of certain philosophical categories in āexplainingā the Eucharist (which, in the case of tran- or consubstantiation, is somehow āwrongā) and the use of certain philosophical categories in āexplainingā the Incarnation (which, in the case of homoousios, is somehow ārightā)?
Let me turn that around:
And therein lies the rub. How can you espouse a view that goes beyond what the Augustana (written in 1530) tells us? By using the full Book of Concord, completed in 1580, youāre changing and narrowing the context and intention of what makes Lutheranism, Lutheranism.
But the Book of Concord represents one strand of āLutheranism,ā written from 10-50 year after Confessio Augustana. There is no ambiguity. No more so than in Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance. Many Churches in Europe, long before the liberal āuprising,ā rejected the Formula of Concord. Why should I accept that document? Am I bound to follow anything written by any Lutheran body? If not, what makes the Formula of Concord different?
P
pablope
Guest
If you read more history, not snippetsā¦what Church were the Copts a part of before they known as the Copts?
The Copts are part of the See of Alexandriaā¦so which part of the original Church the see of Alexandria was?
Did you read this part of the link:
constituted the majority of Egyptās population, and the Church of Alexandria was recognized as one of Christendomās four Apostolic Sees, second in honor only to the Church of Rome. The Church of Alexandria is therefore the oldest Christian church in Africa.
S
steido01
Guest
I disagree, Father; even your explanation can be taken to imply a co-mingling of the [elements/accidents/whatever philosophical label is given the Body and Blood and Bread and Wine]. āExisting togetherā [in some new, single, third substance] is not the same as simply being āpresent togetherā in a special union that is not of entirely earthly things. The need to make all things understandable is to be expected of Aristotelian explanations like Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation, which explore the relationship between earthly things (or at least āthingsā from an earthly perspective) ā in Consubstantiation, a mixture, in Transubstantiation, a transformation. Sacramental Union doesnāt understand the Sacrament as just earthly (local) things, but recognizes that heavenly things beyond understanding also come to earth in the Sacrament ā thereby not explaining āhowā the mystery happens in our local, temporal plane.
A distinction in the English is clear: the article āwith.ā That article can be mistaken to mean one earthly thing taken āwithā another earthly thing ā in other words, Consubstantiation requires the creation (or existence) of a third earthly substance (however homogenous or heterogenous it may be - I canāt pretend to measure the ālumpinessā of such a view
). The alternative is that both earthly and heavenly are simply present together in a union that is beyond human understanding.I should note that the articles āin, with and underā carry a different meaning if weāre talking about the Real Presence, in general. In situations where weāre talking with say, a Zwinglian who denies the Real Presence, then those articles makes sense in repeating what we do know from Scripture: āThis is My body.ā
Continuedā¦
S
steido01
Guest
Continuedā¦
ā¦
And, indeed, this very opinion, just cited, is founded upon the only firm, immovable, and indubitable rock of truth, from the words of institution, in the holy, divine Word, and was thus understood, taught, and propagated by the holy evangelists and apostles, and their disciples and hearers.
? The more logical explanation, it seems to me, is that the views of Concord were held all along (and therefore represent Lutheran orthodoxy), and the later documents only removed any ambiguity that left the door open for various heresies: namely Zwinglians, confused Bucer followers and crypto-Calvinists. My point is that Augustana cannot be properly read without the proper context; the Book of Concord must be kept in mind.
Additional readings for those so inclined:
pastorreeder.wordpress.com/tag/formula-of-concord/
acroamaticus.blogspot.com/2014/07/lutherans-do-not-believe-in_4.html
pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2010/11/consubstantiation-receptionism-and.html
pastorjameskellerman.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-myth-of-consubstantiation.html
stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html
They are fundamentally different. One is necessary in understanding the relationship between our Savior and His Father (and therefore our relation to God) - and has firm grounding in Scripture. The other is a needless explanation that, in the words of one Lutheran pastor, ādoes little to assure and is, at best, a muddying of the waters. It pits what the eye sees against what the mind understands and in the end attempts to uncloak the mystery of the presence that can never be comprehended or explained but only believed and received.ā The Reformers knew this, too. From the Solid Declaration:
.] Even as many eminent ancient teachers, Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom and others, use this simile concerning the words of Christās 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. 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 Christās 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). 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. Likewise Dr. Luther also in his Large and especially in his last Confession concerning the Lordās Supper with great earnestness and zeal defends the very form of expression which Christ used at the first Supper.
ā¦
And, indeed, this very opinion, just cited, is founded upon the only firm, immovable, and indubitable rock of truth, from the words of institution, in the holy, divine Word, and was thus understood, taught, and propagated by the holy evangelists and apostles, and their disciples and hearers.
Are you suggesting that the very Reformers who had a hand in both those documents changed their views in the short time between those publications (and that their own later writings were in error:bigyikes
? The more logical explanation, it seems to me, is that the views of Concord were held all along (and therefore represent Lutheran orthodoxy), and the later documents only removed any ambiguity that left the door open for various heresies: namely Zwinglians, confused Bucer followers and crypto-Calvinists. My point is that Augustana cannot be properly read without the proper context; the Book of Concord must be kept in mind.Additional readings for those so inclined:
pastorreeder.wordpress.com/tag/formula-of-concord/
acroamaticus.blogspot.com/2014/07/lutherans-do-not-believe-in_4.html
pastoralmeanderings.blogspot.com/2010/11/consubstantiation-receptionism-and.html
pastorjameskellerman.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-myth-of-consubstantiation.html
stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html
K
KjetilK
Guest
I do not have time to answer all your post now, but Iāll answer some points.
And why is it necessary to understand the relationship between our Savior and His Father, yet not necessary to understand the relationship between the body/blood of Christ and the bread/wine? Why not simply say that the Incarnation is a mystery, and stop there?
The Book of Concord is a collection of academic writings. It doesnāt carry any more weight than the weight of the arguments presented. And, since I have no obligation to follow it, I feel free to reject it when the arguments fail.
One of these arguments is that consubstantion is not the same as sacramental presence, which is just nonsense. āExisting togetherā is the same as āpresent together.ā
Two points. 1) That just comes off as sophistry to me. 2) Consubstantiation just means that two or more substances exist ā i.e. are present ā together. It does not necessarily imply that the two make up a third substance.
You are missing my point. The two doctrines use the philosophical concept ā substance ā yet one is OK, and the other is somehow borderline heretical (cf. your point about a third substance). If consubstantiation implies a āminglingā or a āthird substance,ā then the Incarnation implies the same. But since the Incarnation doesnāt imply that, you need to show why consubstantiation does (not just assert that it does).
And why is it necessary to understand the relationship between our Savior and His Father, yet not necessary to understand the relationship between the body/blood of Christ and the bread/wine? Why not simply say that the Incarnation is a mystery, and stop there?
Iām suggesting that they werenāt infallible, and that I am in no way bound to follow everything any Lutheran Reformer happens to write. What about the changed version of Confessio Augustana from 1540? Why isnāt that a āproper developmentā? Why not follow Melanchthon the Reformer here? Why not assume that the views of that altered version were held all along (and therefore represent Lutheran orthodoxy), and that the alteration only removed any ambiguity that left the door open for various heresies?
Yes, and that context is ā as the confession itself tells us ā Catholic Tradition, with emphasis on the Nicene and Chalcedonian Creeds.
The Book of Concord is a collection of academic writings. It doesnāt carry any more weight than the weight of the arguments presented. And, since I have no obligation to follow it, I feel free to reject it when the arguments fail.
One of these arguments is that consubstantion is not the same as sacramental presence, which is just nonsense. āExisting togetherā is the same as āpresent together.ā
B
benjohnson
Guest
Itās a fascinating Lutheran who, when confronted with the choice of Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, and Sacramental Union, says āALL OF THEM!!ā
K
KjetilK
Guest
If that was directed at me, you clearly didnāt read my post.
First, there ISNāT any essential difference between consubstantiation and sacramental union. Both state that the natural substance of bread and wine is present together with the substance of Christās body and blood, respectively, in the Eucharist.
Second, I myself hold to transubstantiation, which is perfectly compatible with Confessio Augustana, but which is ruled out in the Formula of Concord. Since Confessio Augustana tells me that the proper context into which I should read the confession is Catholic tradition, and since the confession state, explicitly, that the content of (at least) the firt 21 articles contain ānothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome,ā then the confession is at least open to, if not embracing, transubstantiation, since that has been taught by āthe Church of Romeā well before the Reformation.
The definition of the Eucharist, given in the 10th article, state, in the latin version that āthe Body and Blood of Christ are truly present,ā and, in the German version, that āthe true Body and Blood of Christ is truly present under the form (Ger. Gestalt) of the Bread and Wine in the Supper.ā Gestalt have many different meanings in German. One of them is what is called accidents.
From this, I see nothing āun-Lutheranā by adhering to transubstantiation. It seems, in fact, to be the logical reading of Confessio Augustana.
B
benjohnson
Guest
No I read it, but please forgive me for not being careful around your equivalency and uniquely non-Luthern teaching.
From here:
I nattverden er Kristus selv til stede og gir sitt legeme og blod i brĆød og vin.
gammel.kirken.no/?event=dolink&famID=2176
I see none no modern philosophical / aristotelian ideas being professed by your church. Simply that we participate in eating and drinking our Lordās Body and Blood - it seems a rather refreshing statement of faith frankly and your church is to be commended for proclaiming the Gospel as received.
Perhaps I got your church wrong? I very well may have.
P
pablope
Guest
B
benjohnson
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
Will check it out, thanks for the link! I wonāt reply to the whole thing here, but there is one bit that stands out to me that I think applies here;
I would strongly urge you to read the threadā¦in it, you will find that the Lutheran position of SU also employs philosophical concepts, though some Lutherans may deny it.
I donāt believe in the binding and loosing authority the same way the Catholic church teaches (obviously) as I donāt see that taught nor applied in scripture the way the Catholic church teaches and applies it.
P
pablope
Guest
E
eddie_too
Guest
I must have missed it but where in the bible does Jesus say that āthis is my body, at least for the time beingā?
the absence of Jesus saying the above, as well as the teachings of the apostles who themselves spent over three years learning from Jesus Himself about the Divine Mysteries, of which the Lordās Supper is one, lent itself to the doctrine of transubstantiation.
transubstantiation is simply a logical expression of the Mystery that is the Eucharist. as with most doctrines, it is intended to guard against errors.
errors might be such as the nature of the bread and wine is malleable even after it is changed into the Lordās Body and Blood. this was never taught by the successors to the apostles. always they taught us that the Body and Blood was to be adored until it was either consumed or lost its identity as bread or wine.
form and substance are words used to ensure that the nature of what occurs at the consecration is not misunderstood.
the mystery itself is far greater than the doctrine of transubstantiation, but the doctrine of transubstantiation does not diminish the mystery. rather, it ensures faithfulness to the teachings of the apostles. it also helps we of normal intelligence to worship the consecrated body and blood with full confidence that it is an authentic and unique encounter with Jesus that cannot be experienced in any other way and with any greater depth outside of the Beatific Vision.
the absence of Jesus saying the above, as well as the teachings of the apostles who themselves spent over three years learning from Jesus Himself about the Divine Mysteries, of which the Lordās Supper is one, lent itself to the doctrine of transubstantiation.
transubstantiation is simply a logical expression of the Mystery that is the Eucharist. as with most doctrines, it is intended to guard against errors.
errors might be such as the nature of the bread and wine is malleable even after it is changed into the Lordās Body and Blood. this was never taught by the successors to the apostles. always they taught us that the Body and Blood was to be adored until it was either consumed or lost its identity as bread or wine.
form and substance are words used to ensure that the nature of what occurs at the consecration is not misunderstood.
the mystery itself is far greater than the doctrine of transubstantiation, but the doctrine of transubstantiation does not diminish the mystery. rather, it ensures faithfulness to the teachings of the apostles. it also helps we of normal intelligence to worship the consecrated body and blood with full confidence that it is an authentic and unique encounter with Jesus that cannot be experienced in any other way and with any greater depth outside of the Beatific Vision.
B
benjohnson
Guest
- Status