Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Sacramental Union

[Thorolfr]

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

Thanks for the book recommendation. It looks like something I would indeed be interested in. In reading Wilson’s biography of Luther and Diarmaid MacCulloch’s book, The Reformation: A History, I’m coming to really like and respect Luther very much. I just ordered a copy of Luther’s Works, Vol. 54: Table Talk which I understand really allows the reader to get a feeling for Luther the man since it has uncensored remarks which were recorded by his supporters that Luther made at the dinner table, with family and friends.

In addition to being a brilliant scholar, Luther was also a much more likable person than some other giants of the Reformation such as John Calvin.

 

[benjohnson]

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?

+100 points for drama.

 

[benjohnson]

Thanks for the book recommendation. It looks like something I would indeed be interested in. In reading Wilson’s biography of Luther and Diarmaid MacCulloch’s book, The Reformation: A History, I’m coming to really like and respect Luther very much. I just ordered a copy of Luther’s Works, Vol. 54: Table Talk which I understand really allows the reader to get a feeling for Luther the man since it has uncensored remarks which were recorded by his supporters that Luther made at the dinner table, with family and friends.

In addition to being a brilliant scholar, Luther was also a much more likable person than some other giants of the Reformation such as John Calvin.

Uh ohh… you going down the rabbit hole of Luther’s Works It’s consumed people’s lives!

I love the uncensored Luther, because we can see the things he was completely wrong about - so his message that even sinners can be loved by God rings especially true.

One of my favorite things about Luther is that when confronted by the might of politics, the church. and being an outlaw subject to instant death… what does he do? He raises a family and adopts a bunch of children.

If you like the unvarnished Luther - there’s always the Lutheran Insulter yet (Warning… very naughty language): ergofabulous.org/luther/

 

[KjetilK]

+100 points for drama.

Now that’s over, you can start engaging with my points.

 

[steido01]

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.

I’m rather sure I did, Q: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12490406&postcount=47

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” .

Can you blame me for citing the easy pickings?

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.

So then why impose a term that Lutherans reject as misleading because of its connotations? I tried making this point earlier.

Jon’s post is perhaps the most reasoned here. The bottom line is that it is the doctrine of the Real Presence that matters, and the intentions of both *Augustana *and Concord was simply bolstering that point. It’s obvious from the Confessions and from the writings of Lutheran theologians - which must be read in order to properly understand context and remove potential ambiguity.

 

[benjohnson]

engaging with my points.

There’s nothing more to say .

I’m Lutheran, and have bound my conscience to the profession of my faith. I accept what is written in the Small Catechism and will leave it at that.

 

[KjetilK]

There’s nothing more to say .

I’m Lutheran, and have bound my conscience to the profession of my faith. I accept what is written in the Small Catechism and will leave it at that.

Which is just newspeak for the fact that you do not have an answer, and you know it. And before you actually engage my points, that is the conclusion any reasonable person will draw.

The problem here is that if you meet someone who, you know, actually knows what consubstantiation means (that two substances, in one way or another, are present together) and what it doesn’t necessarily means (that the two substances make up a ‘3rd’ substance), and tell that person that you neither believe in consubstantiation nor transubstantiation, but something called ‘sacramental union,’ then the reasonable conclusion that person should draw is that you DO NOT in fact believe that Christ is really present (either ‘present with’ or ‘under the species of’ the bread and wine).

When you reject consubstantiation, you simultaneously reject what the definition of the Eucharist in the Formula of Concord entails.

Saying you reject consubstantiation does not make the Lutheran view any clearer. If I hadn’t known the subtleties of your view, which is true of almost anyone without a degree in theology, I would – from you rejection of consubstantiation – assume that you actually did not believe Christ was really or substantially present in the Eucharist. And rightly so.

 

[benjohnson]

Which is just newspeak for the fact that you do not have an answer, and you know it. And before you actually engage my points, that is the conclusion any reasonable person will draw.

Only true if I felt that your reasoning were a better bulwark for my faith than God’s Word.

Instead, I’ll rely on the Word of God per 1 Corinthians 1:25.

 

[KjetilK]

Only true if I felt that your reasoning were a better bulwark for my faith than God’s Word.

Instead, I’ll rely on the Word of God per 1 Corinthians 1:25.

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12500280] Which is just newspeak for the fact that you do not have an answer, and you know it. And before you actually engage my points, that is the conclusion any reasonable person will draw.

Hi Father,
Unless he feels the discussion has turned from dialogue to argument, and he wishes not to continue in that way.

The problem here is that if you meet someone who, you know, actually knows what consubstantiation means (that two substances, in one way or another, are present together) and what it doesn’t necessarily means (that the two substances make up a ‘3rd’ substance), and tell that person that you neither believe in consubstantiation nor transubstantiation, but something called ‘sacramental union,’ then the reasonable conclusion that person should draw is that you DO NOT in fact believe that Christ is really present (either ‘present with’ or ‘under the species of’ the bread and wine).

This would assume that virtually every Lutheran teacher and theologian of note from the very time of the Reformation did not know what consubstantiation was/is. This is an untenable position to take, ISTM.

When you reject consubstantiation, you simultaneously reject what the definition of the Eucharist in the Formula of Concord entails.

You are saying that virtually every theologian since has rejected The Formula of Concord which, again, is an untenable position.

Saying you reject consubstantiation does not make the Lutheran view any clearer. If I hadn’t known the subtleties of your view, which is true of almost anyone without a degree in theology, I would – from you rejection of consubstantiation – assume that you actually did not believe Christ was really or substantially present in the Eucharist. And rightly so.

Perhaps this is his reason for preferring to break off the discussion. I would suggest that few members of CAF are theological scholars, but are instead driven to dialogue here to learn more.
It seems to me that you have been well schooled, indeed, but that the definition of consubstantiation you have been educated in is not the same as what appears to be the case of historic Lutheranism by and large, or that of the crypto-Calvinists who leveled the accusation. From Osiander and Gerhard, to Sasse and Krauth, they reject Consubstantiation without rejecting the FoC or Sacramental Union. Why would you expect Lutherans outside of your tradition’s practice of it to do differently, or even to believe that what you say, your definition, is to be believed above the scholars I have just mentioned, and many more?
No Lutheran here would, is even permitted to disagree with that definition of real presence we both find in Augsburg, recounted in the Apology and the Small Catechism. And we read the FoC in light of that definition.
If you believe FoC to say “consubstantiation”, well and good. The vast majority of Lutherans, historic and contemporary alike, do not.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

I’m not sure that this will add much to the discussion so far, but in his book The Reformation: A History (p. 144), Diarmaid MacCulloch mentions a simile that Luther liked to use to explain Sacramental Union:

in his favorite simile, they [the body and blood] were present as heat fills a piece of iron once fire has heated it up, and there is nothing more physical than the sensation of holding a red-hot poker.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m not sure that this will add much to the discussion so far, but in his book The Reformation: A History (p. 144), Diarmaid MacCulloch mentions a simile that Luther liked to use to explain Sacramental Union:

in his favorite simile, they were present as heat fills a piece of iron once fire has heated it up, and there is nothing more physical than the sensation of holding a red-hot poker.[/QUOCTE]

A cold piece of iron or a hot piece of iron is still a piece of iron.

 

[pablope]

I’m not sure that this will add much to the discussion so far, but in his book The Reformation: A History (p. 144), Diarmaid MacCulloch mentions a simile that Luther liked to use to explain Sacramental Union:

Quote:
in his favorite simile, they [the body and blood] were present as heat fills a piece of iron once fire has heated it up, and there is nothing more physical than the sensation of holding a red-hot poker.

How is it any different than what consubstantation is as defined?

As I remember this analogy, there is no change in the iron, it is still iron…

 

[benjohnson]

How is it any different than what consubstantation is as defined?

It may very well be - but here, Luther was just being helpful in giving an example.

 

[pablope]

It may very well be - but here, Luther was just being helpful in giving an example.

Okay…employing philosophical concepts…so why is this ok for Luther and Lutherans and transub is not ok to use philosophical concepts?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

This post is addressed to benjohnson, steido01 and whoever else is interested. This is what the Formula of Concord has to say.

Dr. Luther, who, above others, certainly understood the true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession, and who constantly remained steadfast thereto till his end, and defended it, shortly before his death repeated his faith concerning this article with great zeal in his last Confession, where he writes thus: I rate as one concoction, namely, as Sacramentarians and fanatics, which they also are, all who will not believe that the Lord’s bread in the Supper is His true natural body, which the godless or Judas received with the mouth, as well as did St. Peter and all [other] saints; he who will not believe this (I say) should let me alone, and hope for no fellowship with me; this is not going to be altered [thus my opinion stands, which I am not going to change]. Tom. 2, Wittenb., German, fol. 252.

From these explanations, and especially from that of Dr. Luther as the leading teacher of the Augsburg Confession, every intelligent man who loves truth and peace, can undoubtedly perceive what has always been the proper meaning and understanding of the Augsburg Confession in regard to this article.
bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php#para34

Okay, so according to the Formula of Concord, the meaning of the eucharistic doctrine of the Augsburg Confession is the same as the interpretation given by Martin Luther. Of course, Dr. Luther maintained, contrary to transubstantiation, that the substance of bread and wine remain in the sacrament. He writes in the Smalcald Articles,

As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread.
bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#part3.6.5

Okay, so transubstantiation is that Christ remains under the appearance of bread and wine, though what is present is no longer bread and wine. Luther’s teaching is that Christ is present together with the bread and wine, which remain substantially bread and wine, which he argues from 1 Cor. This is the context of the Formula of Concord. The Formula of Concord goes on to repeat this same teaching in greater detail.

35] For the reason why, in addition to the expressions of Christ and St. Paul (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), also the forms: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread [the body of Christ is present and offered], are employed, is that by means of them the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated; 36] just as the expression, Verbum caro factum est, The Word was made flesh John 1:14 ], is repeated and explained by the equivalent expressions: The Word dwelt among us; likewise Col 2:9 ]: In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; likewise Acts 10:38 ]: God was with Him; likewise 2 Cor. 5:19 ]: God was in Christ, and the like; namely, that the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but the two natures, unchanged, are personally united. [These phrases repeat and declare the expression of John, above mentioned, namely, that by the incarnation the divine essence is not changed into the human nature, but that the two natures without confusion are personally united.] 37] 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.
bookofconcord.org/sd-supper.php#para35

Okay, so they explicitly say that the “two substances” (their exact words) of bread and wine are present together in the sacrament. They are not saying, “unlike those stupid papist asses, we refuse to define the manner of Christ’s presence in the sacrament.” No, they explicitly state that the two substances are present together. This is the very definition of consubstantiation! Now, if you don’t want to use the term consubstantiation, that is fine by me, but the doctrine of sacramental union has the same meaning. The substance of Christ’s body is present with the substance of bread, in direct contradiction to transubstantiation.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Catholics are quite free to dismiss Lutheran theologians.

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”

It would be one thing if all that they said was what you quoted above, but they say much more than that. As I showed in my earlier, they put forward a very particular eucharistic doctrine which is in contradiction to transubstantiation. The parts you post are not from sections where they are addressing “the papists.” They are speaking against the “fanatical sacramentarians.”

“[W]hether a wicked priest…” is addressed against a Donatist position espoused by certain Protestants.
“Even though a knave take or distribute…” is addressed both against the same position as the preceding and also against the position (held by, e.g., the Calvinists) that Christ is only received in the sacrament by the elect/faithful.

When they say, defense against all error," they do not mean all error whatsover. They mean errors from the Sacramentarian side. They address the papistical position later and they use different arguments to refute it.

I take it from your statement that you could not find any philosophical language in their definition of sacramental union that you have not had time to read the whole thing. I don’t blame you if you have not since it is very long. For now, search the document (ctrl+f should pull up some examples) for terms such as essence, substance, accident, mode, local presence, nature etc. You will see that they are not used only in their statement of what they claim is the Catholic position, but also in their positive formulation of their own Lutheran position. Read the passage starting at VII.35 that I posted above.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I’m rather sure I did, Q: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12490406&postcount=47

…]

Jon’s post is perhaps the most reasoned here. The bottom line is that it is the doctrine of the Real Presence that matters, and the intentions of both *Augustana *and Concord was simply bolstering that point. It’s obvious from the Confessions and from the writings of Lutheran theologians - which must be read in order to properly understand context and remove potential ambiguity.

I’m sorry I overlooked your post. Even so, as it stands what I said was not much of an exaggeration. And the passage you quote, which I have also quoted above, does not bear out your argument. You have bolded two parts. The firstis an explicit rejection of transubstantiation, saying that bread is not transformed into the substance of Christ’s body, but that the substance of the bread is united to the substance of Christ’s body. These are two different positions, which are in direct contradiction. Sacramental union or transubstantiation, but you can’t have both.

The second bolded portion is where they clarify that by using the analogy of the Incarnation they are not implying a hypostatic union of Christ with the altar bread. This is important for them to do because one could easily get that idea from some of the language they use. If you read the Eastern Orthodox Confession of Dositheus, you will see that it says that Luther believed in impanation, probably for the same reason. All that aside, it does not have any real bearing on the question at hand here. No one, as far as I remember, has accused Lutherans of believing in impanation. The question under consideration is instead the the nature of the sacrament. Put crudely, is it Christ alone or Christ plus bread? Catholics reply with the former, the authors of the FC the latter.

I also disagree that the opinions of Lutheran theologians who lived after the time of FC are normative for reading the FC. The norm for interpreting the FC should be primarily the FC, along with Martin Luther who according to the FC “certainly understood the true and proper meaning of the Augsburg Confession.” Both Martin Luther and the FC state the substance of Christ’s body and the substance of the bread are present together in the Lord’s Supper. If any Lutheran theologian has a different opinion regarding transubstantiation and sacramental union, his opinion is not in conformity with the FC. There is also the phenomenon of receptionism, especially among the American Lutherans…

scribd.com/doc/16218416/Murray-on-Reception-Ism

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

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.

The Formula of Concord:

Accordingly, with heart and mouth we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading all errors which are not in accordance with, but contrary and opposed to, the doctrine above mentioned and founded upon God’s Word, such as,

1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught that the consecrated or blessed bread and wine in the Holy Supper lose entirely their substance and essence, and are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ in such a way that only the mere form of bread and wine is left, or accidentia sine subiecto (the accidents without the object); under which form of the bread, which nevertheless is bread no longer, but according to their assertion has lost its natural essence, the body of Christ is present even apart from the administration of the Holy Supper, when the bread is enclosed in the pyx or is carried about for display and adoration. For nothing can be a sacrament without God’s command and the appointed use for which it is instituted in God’s Word, as was shown above.

The Council of Trent:

CANON II.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

The Formula of Concord:

1. Also, that contrary to the public command and institution of Christ only one form of the Sacrament is administered to the laity; as these papistic abuses have been thoroughly refuted by means of God’s Word and the testimonies of the ancient Church, in the common Confession and the Apology of our churches, the Smalcald Articles, and other writings of our theologians.

The Council of Trent:

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each [Page 83] species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

The Formula of Concord:

Accordingly, with heart and mouth we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading all errors which are not in accordance with, but contrary and opposed to, the doctrine above mentioned and founded upon God’s Word, such as,

1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught that the consecrated or blessed bread and wine in the Holy Supper lose entirely their substance and essence, and are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ in such a way that only the mere form of bread and wine is left, or accidentia sine subiecto (the accidents without the object); under which form of the bread, which nevertheless is bread no longer, but according to their assertion has lost its natural essence, the body of Christ is present even apart from the administration of the Holy Supper, when the bread is enclosed in the pyx or is carried about for display and adoration. For nothing can be a sacrament without God’s command and the appointed use for which it is instituted in God’s Word, as was shown above.

The Countil of Trent:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the Eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true Body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

The Formula of Concord:

[Let us now come also to the second point, of which mention was made a little before.] To preserve this true Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Supper, and to avoid and abolish manifold idolatrous abuses and perversions of this testament, the following useful rule and standard has been derived from the words of institution: Nihil habet rationem sacramenti extra usum a Christo institutum (“Nothing has the nature of a sacrament apart from the use instituted by Christ”) or extra actionem divinitus institutam (“apart from the action divinely instituted”). That is: If the institution of Christ be not observed as He appointed it, there is no sacrament. This is by no means to be rejected, but can and should be urged and maintained with profit in the Church of God. And the use or action here does not mean chiefly faith, neither the oral participation only, but the entire external, visible action of the Lord’s Supper instituted by Christ, [to this indeed is required] the consecration, or words of institution, the distribution and reception, or oral partaking [manducation] of the consecrated bread and wine, [likewise the partaking] of the body and blood of Christ. And apart from this use, when in the papistic mass the bread is not distributed, but offered up or enclosed, borne about, and exhibited for adoration, it is to be regarded as no sacrament; just as the water of baptism, when used to consecrate bells or to cure leprosy, or otherwise exhibited for worship, is no sacrament or baptism. For against such papistic abuses this rule has been set up at the beginning [of the reviving Gospel], and has been explained by Dr. Luther himself, Tom. IV, Jena.

The Council of Trent:

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

The Formula of Concord:

Accordingly, with heart and mouth we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading all errors which are not in accordance with, but contrary and opposed to, the doctrine above mentioned and founded upon God’s Word, such as,

1. The papistic transubstantiation, when it is taught that the consecrated or blessed bread and wine in the Holy Supper lose entirely their substance and essence, and are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ in such a way that only the mere form of bread and wine is left, or accidentia sine subiecto (the accidents without the object); under which form of the bread, which nevertheless is bread no longer, but according to their assertion has lost its natural essence, the body of Christ is present even apart from the administration of the Holy Supper, when the bread is enclosed in the pyx or is carried about for display and adoration. For nothing can be a sacrament without God’s command and the appointed use for which it is instituted in God’s Word, as was shown above.

The Council of Trent:

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.