Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Sacramental Union

[pablope]

So how can a dogma be introducing a stumbling block? The incarnation, for one, uses philosophical terms too…so why is it not a stumbling block?

Please provide a more concrete example…not generalities.

The response to heresy can be an action of the Holy Spirit - though Lutherans don’t subscribe to the recent dogma of Papal Infallibly, so we we can’t make that pronouncement with certainty.

The Church has responded to several heresies throughout its history…so when do you think in its responses to heresies it was never guided by the Holy Spirit? Can you provide one example of a response to a heresy where the Church was not guided by the Holy Spirit.

though Lutherans don’t subscribe to the recent dogma of Papal Infallibly, so we we can’t make that pronouncement with certainty

So you have doubts. Do you doubt the inerrancy of your Lutheran confessions?

 

[Thorolfr]

Thanks everyone for a very interesting discussion.

In the Southern Baptist church I grew up in as a child, I just took communion without really thinking much about it or knowing what it really represented. It involved eating a little cracker and drinking some grape juice (it was never wine and I’m sure that my Baptist grandmother would claim that Jesus really changed the water into grape juice, not wine).

When I started going to the Lutheran church of which I am now a member, I didn’t take communion for a long time because I didn’t want to just follow the crowd and do something because everyone else was doing it without understanding what communion really means. The little Lutheran Handbook I was given when I became a member has Luther’s Small Catechism in it, but this doesn’t really give a very detailed description of what Holy Communion really is.besides saying that it is “the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine”. But what “under the bread and wine” means, I still don’t really know, so I’m glad to be following this discussion.

 

[jlhargus]

IMO. And it was the dogmatization of that man-made view that has turned many people off from it, as it would no longer be enough to accept the truth in a different sense, one would have to espouse transubstantiation. In short, dogmatizing something in a way that fractures the Body of Christ doesn’t seem to be an idea steeped in unity. Don’t misunderstand, I understand the reason given by Catholics, I just don’t agree with it.

Defining a dogma is usually done to clarify a truth, precisely because of those who want to accept only their own sense of truth. That’s what caused denominations people only accepting the truth in their sense.

Originally Posted by jlhargus: It was water, do you think David or anyone really believed blood was in the cup or even a true presents of blood with the water? David knew it was only water in the cup. Because he was using the water as a symbol. There was no true presents of blood in that cup only water.

So you see him stating it is blood, yet you know it is water. Is it clear that he declared it blood?

2 Samuel 23: 14 David was then in the stronghold, while the garrison of the Philistines was then in Bethlehem. 15 David had a craving and said, “Oh that someone would give me water to drink from the well of Bethlehem which is by the gate!” 16 So the three mighty men broke through the camp of the Philistines, and drew water from the well of Bethlehem which was by the gate, and took it and brought it to David. Nevertheless he would not drink it, but poured it out to the Lord; 17 and he said, “Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this. Shall I drink the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives?” Therefore he would not drink it. These things the three mighty men did.

Yes, he makes it clear. Just as it is “clear” that Jesus called the bread His body. Both Jewish; David, and his Son Jesus using clear language. One we all agree is water, but yet is blood in a very real sense, and one we don’t agree whether it is bread or flesh. What applies to one can apply to another. The point being, David was clear, and to him in a very real sense, that water was blood, which he poured out as an offering to God, so precious was it. No one would have insulted David by downplaying the meaning and reality of what he declared and what he did.

You will need to explain your view," yet is blood in a very real sense". How is the water, in the cup, blood in a real sense? The water in the cup can only be symbolic of the blood, of those men who could have been killed. Of course no one would have downplayed David’s meaning because everyone knew the meaning was symbolic of the blood that could have been shed.

I agree David was clear the water in the cup was symbolic only and David knew it was water only and so do we. David was a man Christ was both man and God. Christ was crystal clear the bread and wine were changed into His body and blood. He didn’t say this is my body and blood present with bread and wine.

[Mk14:22 And as they did eat, **Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body. 23 And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. 24 And he said unto them, **This is my blood **of the new testament, which is shed for many.]

[Jn6:48 I am that bread of life. 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 **This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, **that a man may eat **thereof, and not die. 51 I am **the living bread **which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52-54 … 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.]

Original quote jlhargus: Lutherans may deny consubstantiation but the Aristotelian philosophy succinctly defines their believe that both bread and wine are present with Christ . Just as Aristotelian philosophy of transubstantiation succinctly defines Catholic belief that bread and wine are no longer present but only Christ. Just as the word trinity defines Catholic teaching there are three persons in the one God.

There is a reason why Lutherans reject the term “consubstantiation” but that’s not my fight, though I do respect them for it.

If your or their reason is because it is of pagan origin then why accept the word trinity to define three persons in the one essence of God? Or for that matter the NT which was written in the pagan language of Greek.

 

[benjohnson]

The Church has responded to several heresies throughout its history…so when do you think in its responses to heresies it was never guided by the Holy Spirit? Can you provide one example of a response to a heresy where the Church was not guided by the Holy Spirit.

Lutherans and Catholics, in my opinion, didn’t listen to the Holy Spirit enough when confronted with the various Anabaptists heresies. A little more proclaiming the Gospel and a bit less slaughter would have better.

So you have doubts. Do you doubt the inerrancy of your Lutheran confessions?

I’m not sure if we say the Lutheran confessions are inerrant - only that they’re a right reflection of scripture. In that we invite correction.

 

[KjetilK]

Making a particular philisophical definition a Dogma of the church would be one possibilty - not that the definition is bad, but that the Dogma introduces a stumbling block.

Yet this suddenly disappears the second we venture into the mystery of the Incarnation, where philosophical definitions are suddenly A-ok.

 

[pablope]

The Church has responded to several heresies throughout its history…so when do you think in its responses to heresies it was never guided by the Holy Spirit? Can you provide one example of a response to a heresy where the Church was not guided by the Holy Spirit.

Lutherans and Catholics, in my opinion, didn’t listen to the Holy Spirit enough when confronted with the various Anabaptists heresies. A little more proclaiming the Gospel and a bit less slaughter would have better.

The Anabaptists do not count, they are on off shoot of the Reformation…they are more a heresy of the Reformation.

Be that as it may…from your response, the Holy Spirit’s guidance was there…it just that men did not listen…so you really did not answer the question…when has the Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church in responding to heresies?

I’m not sure if we say the Lutheran confessions are inerrant - only that they’re a right reflection of scripture. In that we invite correction.

And how would you know they are a right reflection of Scripture? Who made that proclamation?

And can you show me an instance where the Lutherans (or yourself) has invited correction and accepted it?

 

[pablope]

pablope;12492416:

Making a particular philisophical definition a Dogma of the church would be one possibilty - not that the definition is bad, but that the Dogma introduces a stumbling block.

By the way…another question…do you think SU is not a dogma of the Lutherans?

And do you this dogma of SU does not introduce a stumbling block also?

 

[KjetilK]

No I read it, but please forgive me for not being careful around your equivalency and uniquely non-Luthern teaching.

You are treating Lutheranism as if it is a Church, not an ecclesial tradition. The Book of Concord (as a whole) is NOT, and I repeat NOT, part of the ‘Lutheran tradition’ simpliciter. It is part of the tradition of some Lutheran Churches.

I do not feel in any way obliged to follow suit when some part of the Lutheran tradition holds to some novelty (in this case, treating a academic document from the 1580s as a binding confession), expecting other to do the same.

Is it ‘non-Byzantinian’ to include the Prayer of Manasseh in the Biblical canon? The Russian Church (Moscow patriarchate) includes it in the canon, while the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (in communion with Rome) does not. Which of these is ‘non-Byzantinian’?

From here:

I nattverden er Kristus selv til stede og gir sitt legeme og blod i brød 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 Lord’s 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.

A word of advice. When citing something in a language you do not speak, to someone who speaks it as his mother tongue, be sure to know what the sentence says.

The sentence says: “In the Lord’s Supper, Christ is himself present and bestows his body and blood in bread and wine.” This IS consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is not a philosophical ‘explanation.’ It simply says the same thing, using terms which are also used by Aristotelian philosophy. Just like the Fathers of Nicea expressed the relationship between the Father and the Son, using terms which are also used by Platonic philosophy.

But the article you found is not a theological text book. It is a presentation of the Eucharist to youth, and thus they do not use the philosophical language which IS FOUND in the Formula of Concord. Which is also in line with the Formula of Concord’s advice regarding the use of philosophical language.

But the article is also not a authoritative statement. The only source of that is Scripture and the Creeds, read in light of Catholic tradition. And that strongly suggests that transubstantiation is at least permissible, if not actually taught in Confessio Augustana.

And are you suggesting that to preach either transubstantiation or consubstantiation is against the Gospel? Really?

Perhaps I got your church wrong? I very well may have.

You did not.

 

[pablope]

Will check it out, thanks for the link! I won’t reply to the whole thing here, but there is one bit that stands out to me that I think applies here;

The best method is what is presented in scripture. As CS Lewis said, man-made explanations, metaphors, etc… are helpful, but they should always bow to what was told to us in scripture, and we should hearken to how God decided to define something or how He chose to illustrate it, the examples given, the parables, and what is contained in the OT and NT as types. That is one reason why I do lean toward a more Orthodox way of looking at certain things presented to us; not everything has to be put in an intellectual box and labelled in order to be believed or practiced. And I further contend that by doing so, anyone that does not label something the same, then gets splintered from those who do.

God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, His ways are not our ways, and from regular physics to quantum physics to supernatural occurrences and forces… I just do not feel comfortable with tying in a dogmatic statement formulated by man that is directly tied to a non-Christian philosopher (Aristotle) that is tied to mans’ thoughts and a certain culture and time.

A good read for you…calledtocommunion.com/2014/11/please-stop-reinventing-the-wheel-an-invitation-to-peter-leithart/

So one impediment to sharing the same Eucharistic table is a basic recognition that these groups do not agree on what it is, and what it means. To fail to recognize this is to pretend a unity exists when it does not in fact exist. What leads the Catholic Church to take Protestant communities and the people within them at their word concerning dogma, and as such, to deny them participation in the Eucharist as a matter of charity is basic respect for the freedom of conscience. If transubstantiation is a falsehood that needs to be “corrected” by Reformed doctrine, one cannot consistently claim that it is wrong to be denied the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. Receiving the Eucharist in the Catholic Church signifies agreement with what the Catholic Church teaches concerning herself and the Eucharist, among other things. Dr. Leithart’s fathers in the Reformed tradition were not so sanguine about the matter, to put it mildly. He cannot both affirm Reformed doctrine and affirm Catholic doctrine by participating in the Catholic Eucharist.

The problem with this whole project as laid out by Leithart is that it elevates theological and ecclesiological discontinuity to the level of a principle. We’ve called that principle many times “ecclesial deism,” and it is worth considering again.2 If one posits that the truth about God and what He has revealed has been lost or hidden, one can explain why the doctrine of God and the practices of His people would change from what we find in the early decades and centuries of the Church until whichever time one claims the truth was recovered. But as the name “ecclesial deism” implies, it also poses a significant challenge to the basic outline of the biblical story: a God who is very much involved with His people, and is never willing to leave them without the truth even if their unfaithfulness to it has covenantal consequences that are stern. The Reformation narrative by definition, however, must presuppose that the true doctrine of God had been lost sometime in the early centuries after the coming of Christ, only to be recovered by the reformers in the 16th century.

 

[steido01]

You are treating Lutheranism as if it is a Church, not an ecclesial tradition. The Book of Concord (as a whole) is NOT, and I repeat NOT, part of the ‘Lutheran tradition’ simpliciter. It is part of the tradition of some Lutheran Churches.

I do not feel in any way obliged to follow suit when some part of the Lutheran tradition holds to some novelty (in this case, treating a academic document from the 1580s as a binding confession), expecting other to do the same.

I’ve already noted that the vast majority of communions who identify themselves with the Lutheran tradition subscribe to Sacramental Union, whether they accept as binding only Augustana (like the ELCA) or Concord in its fullness (like the member churches of the ILC & CELC). The percentage of acceptance of Sacramental Union is nigh 100% among Confessional, traditional Lutheran communions who do not permit female ordination or promote syncretism with Islam, the Reformed, secularists, etc. My point is, if you truly do not feel beholden to believe what other Lutheran communions profess, then why try to impose your definitions onto those many Lutheran communions who clearly take offense to the term? Who is really applying labels to other communions as if they were a singular ‘Lutheran Church?’

I think you had mentioned in another thread that you generally don’t appreciate the terms ‘Confessional’ or ‘Liberal’ when used to describe Lutheranism (and I can sympathize with that at times), but I wonder if an academic application of the two is warranted here. We both refer to ourselves as Lutheran, but our respective communions hold different criteria for what constitutes that basic label. I propose we make clear the difference between Confessional Lutheranism and Liberal Lutheranism going forward. Then, you can keep your novel definition of Consubstantiation and we’ll keep our ol’ fashioned Sacramental Union.

 

[KjetilK]

I’ve already noted that the vast majority of communions who identify themselves with the Lutheran tradition subscribe to Sacramental Union, whether they accept as binding only Augustana (like the ELCA) or Concord in its fullness (like the member churches of the ILC & CELC).

And so? Since when did ‘Lutheranism’ become a numbers game?

My point is, if you truly do not feel beholden to believe what other Lutheran communions profess, then why try to impose your definitions onto those many Lutheran communions who clearly take offense to the term?

So you are saying that I’m not supposed to call people on BS? That I’m not allowed to voice my opinion?

My point is that when you actually analyse the concept of consubstantiation and the concept of sacramental union, as it is expressed in the Formula of Concord, they turn out to be the exact same thing, including the use of philosophical terms like substance and essence. I therefore suspect that behind the reluctance of using the term lies some misplaced and confused ideas about the role of philosophy in theology. It seems to boil down to ‘Platonism good, Aristotelianism bad.’

Can you explain why philosophy is OK when it comes to the mystery of the Incarnation, yet not OK when it comes to the mystery of the Eucharist? I’m looking for a principled answer on the use philosophy in theology here, not an answer that boils down to ‘the mystery of the Incarnation is absolutely essential to understand, while the same is not true of the Eucharist.’ We both know that is nonsense. You do not have to ‘understand’ the Incarnation any more than you have to ‘understand’ the Eucharist, unless you are in danger of falling into heresy.

If one mystery is OK to ‘explain’ using philosophy, the same applies to all other mysteries.

Who is really applying labels to other communions as if they were a singular ‘Lutheran Church?’

I have absolutely no idea what that question does at the end of that paragraph. Unless, of course, that you hold that only you are allowed to voice your opinion.

I propose we make clear the difference between Confessional Lutheranism and Liberal Lutheranism going forward. Then, you can keep your novel definition of Consubstantiation and we’ll keep our ol’ fashioned Sacramental Union.

1. That you use the term liberal on me just shows that you do not know me at all.
2. My definition of consubstantiation is not novel. It means nothing else than what is said about sacramental union in the Formula of Concord. And just because you don’t like the term, it doesn’t mean you don’t hold to it.

 

[benjohnson]

A word of advice. .

I think I’ll rest easy.

No Lutheran is buying your conjecture - and certainly not using your own particularly special definitions.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Can I deny that Christ is consubstantial with the Father as merely specious wisdom of the Athanasianists if I think that’s too philosophical and Platonist?

Why are you talking down to KjetilK in such a hostile manner? Because he is misrepresenting Lutheranism? Hardly. He has at least brought forward your denomination’s own confessional statements. Your argument against transubstantiation cannot be the definitive Lutheran position because your argument is not found anywhere in the Formula of Concord. Nowhere does it say that the Church should not use the definition of transubstantiation because philosophy is bad. In fact, it explicitly says that philosophical concepts such as substance and accident (these are mentioned explicitly) are necessary to distinguish true doctrine. It bases its definition of “sacramental union” on such grounds as that it is impossible for accidents to exist without a subject. Sounds like decadent scholasticism to me.

This is not to say that you cannot believe what you will about the Eucharist, but you are not accurately representing the Book of Concord, and you ought not to belittle those who are simply reading with objective eyes.

 

[benjohnson]

Why are you talking down to KjetilK in such a hostile manner?

Speaking only for myself, I enjoy debate - but when a Lutheran pastor is clearly wrong, theres is no need to be coy. To the contrary:

" For where the …] (incorrect teaching) is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it."

Because he is misrepresenting Lutheranism?

This argument that Lutherans proclaim ‘Consubstantiation’ has been demonstrated to be false. By confessional Lutheran theologians - my petulant arguments are only poking around the edges.

Now…

I’m sure there you could find some Lutherans that make such claims, but I would urge you to be certain that their same churches don’t have other ‘novelties’ as an indication on if they hold to the basics of Christian tradition and scripture.

And note: I’m not arguing if this debate needs to be church dividing. My personal view point is that it doesn’t need to be if properly understood as a barrier to the various heresies, and used for teaching.

 

[benjohnson]

so you really did not answer the question…when has the Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church in responding to heresies?

 

[benjohnson]

I’m sure there you could find some Lutherans that make such claims, but I would urge you to be certain that their same churches don’t have other ‘novelties’ as an indication on if they hold to the basics of Christian tradition and scripture.

Let me retract this a bit - there are amazing pastors who are proclaiming the Gospel who are members of imperfect communions and they are doing their best to correct the situation. They should be held up as exemplars, and given thanks.

So using their communion as a litmus test for their own ideas may not nesessarily have merit.

 

[pablope]

I think I’ll rest easy.

No Lutheran is buying your conjecture - and certainly not using your own particularly special definitions.

So, in other words…without saying it directly…Father K is a lutheran heretic…or he is in heresy…

So what is the next step in Lutheranism…there is a disparity in belief…SU is consub…you say it is not…so who is right…Father K or Ben j or Steid?

 

[pablope]

pablope;12492930:

Did I make the claim that the Holy Spirit wasn’t guiding the Church? If so, then I’m wrong.

My claim should have been that the members of the church sometimes don’t follow the Holy Spirit - setting aside your communion in this debate: I’ve know I’ve been guilty of not following the Holy Spirit.

I’ve been called to evangelize many times and yet I fail to to so.

But I am not asking about your failure to evangelize…or whether you are guilty or not of following the HS.

My question…back in post 55 was, and it still remains unanswered…Transub was a response to a heresy. Do you think in responding to this heresy…the CC, in coming with Transub was not guided by the HS?

From your response, in a roundabout way…it was guided by the HS…but somehow, when the Church came up with Transub, in response to a heresy…it was not following the guidance of the HS?

If so…then what do you think should have been the Church’s response to the heresy that challenged the real presence if transub is not the proper response?

 

[pablope]

Speaking only for myself, I enjoy debate - but when a Lutheran pastor is clearly wrong, theres is no need to be coy. To the contrary:

I’m sure there you could find some Lutherans that make such claims, but I would urge you to be certain that their same churches don’t have other ‘novelties’ as an indication on if they hold to the basics of Christian tradition and scripture.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Speaking only for myself, I enjoy debate - but when a Lutheran pastor is clearly wrong, theres is no need to be coy. To the contrary:

" For where the …] (incorrect teaching) is public, the reproof also must be public, that every one may learn to guard against it."

This argument that Lutherans proclaim ‘Consubstantiation’ has been demonstrated to be false. By confessional Lutheran theologians - my petulant arguments are only poking around the edges.

Now…

I’m sure there you could find some Lutherans that make such claims, but I would urge you to be certain that their same churches don’t have other ‘novelties’ as an indication on if they hold to the basics of Christian tradition and scripture.

And note: I’m not arguing if this debate needs to be church dividing. My personal view point is that it doesn’t need to be if properly understood as a barrier to the various heresies, and used for teaching.

But KjetilK is 100% correct. The Formula of Concord’s definition of “sacramental union” is (a) explicitly in contradiction to transubstantiation, (b) accurately described as consubstantiation. The opinions of later Lutheran theologians do not matter, because the Formula of Concord is what is normative for Lutheran belief, not the theologians. What the theologians say is neither here nor there, except inasmuch as they are interpreting the Formula of Concord. It seems to me that Lutherans when they speak on this issue are not accurately interpreting the Formula of Concord, and this is evident in the total absence of references to the text. The same thing has happened in this thread here. KjetilK has provided numerous excerpts of the FC that confirm what he has said. The Lutherans who have argued with him have not referred to the text of the FC at all, only posted links to blog articles (whose authors also neglect the text of their own confessions) and made appeals to various theologians. However, none of these theologians were authors of the Formula of Concord, and even if they were (e.g. Martin Chemnitz), what matters is only what was enshrined in the FC, since Chemnitz’s Examen is not a confessional document.

As far as the question being debated is concerned, the arguments of the theologians can be dismissed on two grounds. The first is that they usually allege Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation, e.g., because they do not believe that Christ exists in the bread “locally.” This is a fallacious sort kind of argument because the basic meaning of the term consubstantiation does not imply a local presence as all, merely the coexistence of the substances of Christ’s body with the substance of the bread together, which is the explicit teaching of the FC. The only reason they make this argument is because they falsely allege that Catholics by transubstantiation understand a local presence of Christ. This is an example of over-defining a term, and then rejecting it because of some technical point that you arbitrarily imposed on it. Secondly, some Lutherans, along the same lines as you, argue that Lutherans reject consubstantiation because it is “too Aristotelian” or “too philosophical.” I don’t know how to respond to this line of argument except by saying that it is not in the spirit of the Formula of Concord, which never makes such an argument in its rejection of transubstantiation and definition of sacramental union.

I think it would be one thing to reject the term “consubstantiation” as being inauthentic since Lutherans have always used the term “sacramental union” instead, or that the term is potentially misleading. One of the bloggers cited the example of a Calvinist who said that Lutherans believe Christ is present in the Eucharist “like a nut is within a cookie” . On this second point, it might be like Calvin, who wrote that he did not reject the doctrine of Mary Mother of God, but said that he disliked the title because it was misleading. It would not be my position, but I understand why others would think that way.

I encourage you to read again through what KjetilK posted, or even read through the section of the Formula of Concord on the Holy Supper. Read also through the section on Original Sin. Ask yourself the question, does the Formula of Concord ever reject the use of philosophical terminology, or does it employ it? Read through it, think over it, and if we continue this discussion, let’s have our discussion on the basis of its contents.