Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Sacramental Union

[KjetilK]

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

Maybe because he cannot answer my posts, and his parents didn’t teach him manners.

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.

Yes, my point exactly.

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

And I agree. But you haven’t engaged my point at all. Please point out where I’m wrong, instead of just making the claim that I’m wrong.

This argument that Lutherans proclaim ‘Consubstantiation’ has been demonstrated to be false.

No, it hasn’t. You have repeatedly made the claim, yes, but making a claim is not the same as demonstration.

The definition of consubstantiation is that two substances are present together. Nothing more, nothing less.

The definition of sacramental union is, from the Solid Declaration Formula of Concord, that “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.” Instead of making claims, you can start actually engaging with my points.

Can you show why consubstantiation (that two substances are present together) is not the same as sacramental union (that two substances are present together)?

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 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.

Yes, my point exactly.

 

[benjohnson]

No Lutheran here has need to debate KjetilK because there’s nothing to debate. The Lutherans on this forum are informing CAF of the Lutheran position - not with our own opinions, but with Lutheran theology.

Form the Lutheran perspective, the three terms are different.

They have different definitions, different adherents, and different meanings.

The world seems to agree with us, as they have separate entries in the encyclopedia of our times.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation

Of course, that’s not to say that Catholics, and other non-Lutherans are free to find them as equivalences, but for myself can’t find a single serious Lutheran theologian who claims Transubstantiation over Sacramental Union.

I’ll think I’ll let the topic rest soon and let the reader decide what Lutheran believe, based on the evidence of Lutheran theology.

 

[benjohnson]

benjohnson;12492456:

pablope;12492416:

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?

Good question! SU points to back to the Gospel - so I would say that it doesn’t provide an additional stumbling block. That doesn’t provide much comfort though - the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior is a hard teaching.

 

[pablope]

pablope;12492938:

benjohnson;12492456:

Good question! SU points to back to the Gospel - so I would say that it doesn’t provide an additional stumbling block. That doesn’t provide much comfort though - the Body and Blood of our Lord and Savior is a hard teaching.

Hmmm…do you think I do not adhere to the RP?

Ok…and how about transub…does it not point back to the gospel? And why do consider transub stumbling block and SU is not?

 

[pablope]

No Lutheran here has need to debate KjetilK because there’s nothing to debate. The Lutherans on this forum are informing CAF of the Lutheran position - not with our own opinions, but with Lutheran theology.

Form the Lutheran perspective, the three terms are different.

They have different definitions, different adherents, and different meanings.

The world seems to agree with us, as they have separate entries in the encyclopedia of our times.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramental_union
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation

Of course, that’s not to say that Catholics, and other non-Lutherans are free to find them as equivalences, but for myself can’t find a single serious Lutheran theologian who claims Transubstantiation over Sacramental Union.

I’ll think I’ll let the topic rest soon and let the reader decide what Lutheran believe, based on the evidence of Lutheran theology.

But Father K is also a Lutheran…

So which Lutheran are you talking about… and where or who is the Lutheran authority to make a ruling on such an important matter?

Are the L theologians and their various theologies the authority to make such a ruling?

 

[benjohnson]

As far as the question being debated is concerned, the arguments of the theologians can be dismissed on two grounds.

Catholics are quite free to dismiss Lutheran theologians.

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.

Ah ha! A great proposition! I’ll bite

In the Solid Declaration we see this:

Hence it is easy to reply* to all manner of questions** about which at the present time men are disturbed, as, for instance, whether a wicked priest can administer and distribute the Sacrament, and such like other points.

For here conclude and reply: Even though a knave take or distribute the Sacrament, he receives the true Sacrament, that is, the true body and blood of Christ

…]

This mark and observe well; for upon these words rest all our foundation, protection, and defense against all error and temptation that have ever come or may yet come.*

At least in this passage, it’s quite clear - We’re are asking our questions, and the Solid Declaration gives clear direction back to the Gospel -that we “conclude and reply: …] the true body and blood of Christ”

I think philosophical questions would fall under this category - and we would meet them with our “conclude and reply”

Ok… but I’m still not off the hook.

Clearly, in the Solid Declaration there’s a lot of railing against the Calvinist view of the Sacrament - and one can safely argue that it uses philosophical terminology to debunk them.

But the closest that it comes to using philosophical terminology in the Lutheran definition (at least as I could find) is: “it is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine.”

So if we take the viewpoint that ‘in and under’ are philosophical terms then we’d conclude as such.

For me, when I tell my kids to get “in” bed and “under” their sheets - I’m not using philosophical terms.

The Lutheran phrase simply points out that we often can’t perceive the Body and Blood as they truly are - we see, and taste, bread and wine.

But to answer your question (I think), The Formula of Concord does ask us to reject questions by “Conclude and reply: …] the true body and blood of Christ”

 

[benjohnson]

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?

I’m certain that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

But Lutherans reject Transubstantiation as new dogma, so we don’t concur with the Catholic Church’s conclusion in this.

 

[benjohnson]

I would think that any Lutheran that adheres to Transubstantiation over Sacramental Union would eventually find themselves dipping their toes in the Tiber.

 

[Duane1966]

I’m certain that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

But Lutherans reject Transubstantiation as new dogma, so we don’t concur with the Catholic Church’s conclusyion in this.

When Moses came down the mountain with the Ten Commandments, was it considered new dogma? The reason I ask, is it because Transubstantiation was defined after the Reformation, that it is rejected as new dogma, or is it because Lutherans felt it was a totally new concept, and therefore should be rejected? Or is it, we will reject it because it comes from Rome, and we will reject anything (even if it is true) that comes from Rome?

My point is that the spirit of the Ten Commandments was written in the hearts of men from the beginning, but our hearts hardened, so God defined them and wrote them in stone. Just like Transubstantiation was there from the beginning, but when the Reformers became confused, and some outright rejected the Eucharist, that Trent defined. But the spirit of Transubstantiation was there from the beginning.

 

[KjetilK]

No Lutheran here has need to debate KjetilK because there’s nothing to debate.

In other words, you don’t have an answer to my points. I cannot see what other conclusion can be drawn after I have asked you, repeatedly, to actually demonstrate where I’m wrong, instead of just asserting it.

The Lutherans on this forum are informing CAF of the Lutheran position - not with our own opinions, but with Lutheran theology.

I have repeatedly made reference to Formula of Concord, you have made several references to blog posts. Who has been referencing ‘Lutheran theology’?

I have cited the definition of consubstantiation - which does not mean ‘local inclusion’ - and the definition of sacramental union, as it is defined in the Formula of Concord, and have made the case that they are identical. Show me were I’m wrong, please.

And again I must add that the content of the Book of Concord - outside the ecumenical creeds, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism - does not represent ‘Lutheran theology’ simpliciter. It represents one strand of the Lutheran tradition, and carry no more formal weight than, say, Karl Rahner’s writings does for a Roman Catholic.

That gives me the opportunity to outright reject the ‘creative’ exegesis of the Formula of Concord, where the pope or the papacy is seen as the ‘anti Christ’ (which is, of course, exegetical nonsense).

 

[benjohnson]

The reason I ask, is it because Transubstantiation was defined after the Reformation, that it is rejected as new dogma, or is it because Lutherans felt it was a totally new concept, and therefore should be rejected? Or is it, we will reject it because it comes from Rome, and we will reject anything (even if it is true) that comes from Rome?

Probably a little of “all of the above”

Lets go back to when the Sacramentarians were running in full force…

Luther got pretty comfortable arguing with Calvinists and others by short-circuiting any debate with just repeating the words of the lord “This is my body”. Luther got so tired debating with Zwingli, that during one debate he carved those very words into the table.

Zwingli would continue with his nuanced arguments and Luther would point to the Words of Institution.



The Lutheran position is that the words are efficacious - that they really mean what they say.

As Lutherans we need to accept the Lord’s words - there’s some amazing arguments from the Sacrementarians that are clever full of interesting ideas, and many of them are convincing if you’re smart and clever - the trouble is that they’re wrong. (In our opinion).

So flash forward a few years, Trent happens, and to us Lutheran we hear another argument about the Eucharist, and (it could be argued) reflexively go into our previous bulwark.

Now to be fair to Lutherans - we don’t necessarily have to think the dogma is wrong per se, only that a deep understanding the Eucharist is un-esessary for salvation to come to our conclusion. Or that the Words of the Lord are sufficient. Lutherans don’t necessarily have to disagree with the dogma to conclude that the dogma is not required.

(I should point out that we’re not alone in this, our Orthodox friends seem to to have similar arguments - that the Eucharist is a Mystery of Faith. So while it’s tempting to think Lutherans are just anti-Catholic, we may not be entirely insane in this issue)

The question becomes is this sill church dividing?

I can’t really answer that at all, and I leave it to others - my personal opinion is that the dogma itself doesn’t have to be dividing between our two churches, but the way it came about is probably is. If Catholics and Orthodox resolved this issue, I’d probably be content.

 

[benjohnson]

In other words, you don’t have an answer to my points.

Many I’m reading into your ‘points’ to much, so here the correct Lutheran answer as given by the Small Catechism:

*What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.*

 

[Duane1966]

Probably a little of “all of the above”

Lets go back to when the Sacramentarians were running in full force…

Luther got pretty comfortable arguing with Calvinists and others by short-circuiting any debate with just repeating the words of the lord “This is my body”. Luther got so tired debating with Zwingli, that during one debate he carved those very words into the table.

Zwingli would continue with his nuanced arguments and Luther would point to the Words of Institution.

http://infanttheology.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/thisismybody.jpg?w=645

The Lutheran position is that the words are efficacious - that they really mean what they say.

As Lutherans we need to accept the Lord’s words - there’s some amazing arguments from the Sacrementarians that are clever full of interesting ideas, and many of them are convincing if you’re smart and clever - the trouble is that they’re wrong. (In our opinion).

So flash forward a few years, Trent happens, and to us Lutheran we hear another argument about the Eucharist, and (it could be argued) reflexively go into our previous bulwark.

Now to be fair to Lutherans - we don’t necessarily have to think the dogma is wrong per se, only that a deep understanding the Eucharist is un-esessary for salvation to come to our conclusion. Or that the Words of the Lord are sufficient. Lutherans don’t necessarily have to disagree with the dogma to conclude that the dogma is not required.

(I should point out that we’re not alone in this, our Orthodox friends seem to to have similar arguments - that the Eucharist is a Mystery of Faith. So while it’s tempting to think Lutherans are just anti-Catholic, we may not be entirely insane in this issue)

The question becomes is this sill church dividing?

I can’t really answer that at all, and I leave it to others - my personal opinion is that the dogma itself doesn’t have to be dividing between our two churches, but the way it came about is probably is. If Catholics and Orthodox resolved this issue, I’d probably be content.

Ty for your reply.

 

[pablope]

I’m certain that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

But Lutherans reject Transubstantiation as new dogma, so we don’t concur with the Catholic Church’s conclusion in this.

So in essence, you disagree with actions of the HS in leading the CC on transub…

And do you think SU is not a new and novel dogma also?

 

[JonNC]

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. 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

Hi Don,
I think I might have highlighted differently, as I’ve done above.
Here the writers are saying, clearly, that although they use the formula, in, with, and under, the intent is clear. It is a the body and blood of Christ. As Luther once commented, God does with the bread and wine as He wills. We receive His body and blood.

One poster here made the comment that the Lutheran theologians can be dismissed. I would contend that if we were to dialogue with Catholics about a Catholic teaching and said we can simply dismiss St. Thomas Aquinas, it would be appropriately met with umbrage.
The fact is not Luther nor any Lutheran since, of any magnitude, has taught consubstantiation, but has denied that SU is consubstantiation. If our Catholic siblings, or even fellow Lutheran Father K wish to argue that it is, they of course may do so.
It is irrelevant since it is not what we teach or believe.

I stand with Father K in this way: if required to choose between consubstantiation and transubstantiation as an expression of the RP, I choose Transubstantiation.
This is not difficult for me, since, as some Lutheran and Catholic theologians agree that the intent of both is, essentially, the same:

Eucharistic Presence

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”.

The 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”).

Jon

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The fact is that Lutherans clearly believe and profess the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. Arriving at how the mystery is to be understood, Lutherans prefer Sacramental Union. Nobody is going to be excommunicated if they don’t exactly cite Sacramental Union and frankly most Lutherans essentially say that the Real Presence occurs at the consecration and elevation [some of our parishes use sanctus bells]. But my sense is that Lutheran seminarians are taught Sacramental Union and could not argue for consubstantiation.

 

[KjetilK]

Many I’m reading into your ‘points’ to much, so here the correct Lutheran answer as given by the Small Catechism:

*What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.*

First, why do you talk down to me like I’m some child? When you write ‘points,’ instead of points you come off as a douce. Are you incapable of engaging in discussion without belittling people?

Second, the definition from Luther IS consubstantiation, if we are to see ’s definition of the EucharistFormula of Concord and the principles of the use of philosophical language in the article on Original Sin in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord as valid expressions of Lutheran doctrine. Last time I checked YOU see this text as confessionally binding.

Now, for the last time. Engage with WHAT I ACTUALLY WRITE, and show me where my logic fails.

But I must add that I do not believe in consubstantiation myself. Historically, transubstantiation, or something which would logically be seen as such, has been taught both in the West and the East.

Therefore I read the confessions in light of that. I see that you haven’t engaged with the point I made a few pages back, that a case can be made for the idea that Confessio Augustana actually teaches transubstantiation. If, as the conclusion of the first part of the confession states, that there is nothing, in articles 1-21, “that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church Catholic, or from the Church of Rome,” then it seems pretty obvious that transubstantiation follows, as that was taught at the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215. Last time I checked, that council would qualify as a function of ‘the Church of Rome.’ Not also that Aristotelian philosophy became the ‘norm.’before I just wanted to point that out.

 

[Thorolfr]

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.’

I’ve been reading Derek Wilson’s book Luther: Out of the Storm (Fortress Press, 2007) and I can see that Luther really disliked Aristotle and those who followed him. There is a famous woodcut by Hans Holbein from 1523 that depicts Luther as Hercules swinging a spiked club and Aristotle and several scholars who embraced some of his ideas such as Thomas Aquinas, William Occam, and Duns Scotus lay bludgeoned to death at his feet.

 

[benjohnson]

. If our Catholic siblings, or even fellow Lutheran Father K wish to argue that it is, they of course may do so.
It is irrelevant since it is not what we teach or believe.

Jon

Thanks Jon, for interjecting your calm wisdom here as I was beginning to tilt at windmills.

 

[benjohnson]

I’ve been reading Derek Wilson’s book Luther: Out of the Storm (Fortress Press, 2007) and I can see that Luther really disliked Aristotle and those who followed him. There is a famous woodcut by Hans Holbein from 1523 that depicts Luther as Hercules swinging a spiked club and Aristotle and several scholars who embraced some of his ideas such as Thomas Aquinas, William Occam, and Duns Scotus lay bludgeoned to death at his feet.

This one?



If you’re find the subject intriguing, there’s a good book that was recommended by HouseHarkonnen here at CAF what goes into the balance Luther had between personal reason and faith given to us by God that I really enjoyed:

amazon.com/The-Foolishness-God-Reason-Theology/dp/0810001551