Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Sacramental Union

[JonNC]

Not as a Catholic, but just as a person, it is distressing to me that you are going through such lengths to obfuscate the clear teaching of the Formula of Concord. It means what it says, and it would be hard-pressed for them to be more clear about their intention. If you agree with the Formula of Concord, I would disagree with you, but we could at least agree that we disagree and that your belief is not consonant with the Catholic faith.

If you disagree with what is stated in the Formula of Concord, reject it. You only owe to assent to it inasmuch as it teaches the truth. Jon has written hear about the difference between “quatenus” Lutherans and “quia” Lutherans. The former only subscribe to the Book of Concord insasmuch as it teaches the truth. Quia Lutherans on the other hand subscribe to the Book of Concord because it teaches the truth. If the FC is wrong and you know that it’s wrong, you cannot be a quia Lutheran. The FC was a product of its time, and the authors were fallible men who produced a fallible document. It should not be surprising that they made a mistake.

Hi Q,
As a “quia” Lutheran, I neither reject the FoC, nor subscribe to the position that it teaches consubstantiation, or impanation, or receptionism. The intention of the FoC is clearly expressed in the numerous descriptions of theologians and dogmaticians since the late 1500’s, virtually all of whom reject consubstantiation and accept the FoC.
As for the presence of Christ beyond the sacramental act, it is best to assume that it does, though Christ nor scripture provide us with guidance on the reliquae. The intention of the FoC is to state that Christ’s intent for the sacrament is to eat and drink. Reservation of the sacrament does not violate our beliefs, as witnessed by the fact that it is often done to take to the sick and shut-ins.

Jon

 

[benjohnson]

it is likely because you do not agree with the Formula of Concord.

If I don’t agree with the FC, then it’s because I’m wrong. I seek to accept the teachings and invite correction.

 

[KjetilK]

As a “quia” Lutheran, I neither reject the FoC, nor subscribe to the position that it teaches consubstantiation…

Yet you (in addition to benjohnson and steido) have not explained what the difference is. You have made the claim that consubstantiation implies the mixture of two substances and the creation of some ‘3rd substance,’ yet have not explain why this is the case.

If we analyse the latin term consubstantiatio we see that, in this case, it means nothing more than the idea that in the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine remains, while the substance of Christ’s body and blood is made present, in one way or another. Consubstantiation mean that the two (four) substances are “present together.” The claim that this implies the creation of some ‘3rd substance’ is a different question altogether.

I would love it if someone would actually engage with my points, and explain WHY two identical definitions aren’t the same thing. Consubstantiation means that, in the Eucharist the bread and the body of Christ (and the wine and the blood of Christ) are “present together.” The definition of sacramental union, from the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, is “the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ” or that “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.”

That IS consubstantiation. And by saying that you do not believe in consubstantiation you are saying to people who know what consubstantiation means, yet who are unfamiliar with your sophisticated (or sophistical) definitions, that you do not believe that Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist.

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12517706]Yet you (in addition to benjohnson and steido) have not explained what the difference is. You have made the claim that consubstantiation implies the mixture of two substances and the creation of some ‘3rd substance,’ yet have not explain why this is the case.

Consubstantiation also implies a side by side coexistence. IOW, the term has had more than one meaning, dating back to Don Scotus and the like.
None of those describe the Lutheran belief stated in the FoC. Further, the FoC is clear to state that the use of the language “in, with, under”, in no way implies a local co-presence of any type, but only implies that that vread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. This is stated throughout the BoC

If we analyse the latin term consubstantiatio we see that, in this case, it means nothing more than the idea that in the Eucharist the substance of bread and wine remains, while the substance of Christ’s body and blood is made present, in one way or another. Consubstantiation mean that the two (four) substances are “present together.” The claim that this implies the creation of some ‘3rd substance’ is a different question altogether.

And yet that was the charge made against the Lutherans, as you know, by the Calvinists. So when Lutherans deny consubstantiation historically and presently, they are denying the these specific charges: of the creation of a third substance, of a local co-presence, of an encasement, etc, which are all definitions of consubstantiation.

I would love it if someone would actually engage with my points, and explain WHY two identical definitions aren’t the same thing. Consubstantiation means that, in the Eucharist the bread and the body of Christ (and the wine and the blood of Christ) are “present together.” The definition of sacramental union, from the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, is “the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ” or that “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."

There have numerous links provided of statements by theologians and pastors far smarter than me as to why we can say, and do say what you quote above, understanding it to mean that the bread and wine ARE the body and blood. One reads the FoC in light of Augsburg, and the Apology, and Smalkald, and the statement reoccurs over and over, the bread and wine ARE the body and blood.

That IS consubstantiation. And by saying that you do not believe in consubstantiation you are saying to people who know what consubstantiation means, yet who are unfamiliar with your sophisticated (or sophistical) definitions, that you do not believe that Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist.

Nonsense. When a Lutheran says we do not believe in consubstantiation, we are saying just what I have stated above: we do not believe in a local co-presence (consubstantiation), we do not believe in a third element (consubstantiation), and we do not believe in a mingling (consubstantiation). We believe that there is natural bread and wine, and we believe that by the power of the Holy Spirit, this natural bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ, as He tells us in His testimony.

On the night Her was betrayed, our Lord took bread, and after giving thanks, He broke it and gave it His disciples, saying, “This [bread] is my body.”
This is what every Lutheran believes.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Quote:
That IS consubstantiation. And by saying that you do not believe in consubstantiation you are saying to people who know what consubstantiation means, yet who are unfamiliar with your sophisticated (or sophistical) definitions, that you do not believe that Christ is substantially present in the Eucharist.
Nonsense. When a Lutheran says we do not believe in consubstantiation, we are saying just what I have stated above: we do not believe in a local co-presence (consubstantiation), we do not believe in a third element (consubstantiation), and we do not believe in a mingling (consubstantiation). We believe that there is natural bread and wine, and we believe that by the power of the Holy Spirit, this natural bread and wine are the true body and blood of Christ, as He tells us in His testimony.

 

[Kliska]

You don’t have to be an Aristotelian to believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or the way in which it uses the terms “substance” and “accident.”** I don’t think anyone can be a Christian and deny the reality that these terms convey**.

I don’t think that is official Catholic teaching, is it? From what I’ve read in the Catechism, and from the words of the Popes, that would not be accurate.

You have to accept the Catholic church’s description of transubstantiation which borrows concepts and labels from Aristotle (and other philosophers), and to accurately present the Catholic church’s teaching on why there would not be DNA present in the bread and wine after the consecration. There is no claim in transubstantiation that the accidents change, in fact it is the opposite.

Mikefitzgerald:

If you look up the Lanciano miracle, you’ll find that scientists proved it real. However that was a miracle.

That’s not what you asked. You asked about transubstantiation and if anyone has checked for DNA in the bread and wine, the answer is yes, but it was not found, nor would the Catholic Church teach it should be found.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12518309]

But your confessional documents say otherwise…as has been pointed out by Q and Father K…what Lutherans believe is really Consub…but given another name…

Do you have a source of a Lutheran theologian, Luther, Chemnitz, any others, or a Lutheran dogmatician, Pieper for instance, that says that the FoC say it teaches consubstantiation?
If not, then it is what Lutherans teach about the FoC that is important, not what others say about it. I have heard some n-C’s here claim that Louis DeMonfort’s mariology sounds like “mariolatry”. It isn’t, regardless of what n-C’s say it sounds like, because Catholics clearly say so.

This looks more like Transsub.

…but you reject Transub for the use of philosophy…and for whatever reasons…yet you use philosophical terms…
Of course it does to you, because you understand Christ’s words through the lens of transub. That’s not a criticism. In fact, its meant as a compliment. I don’t see it as Transub or consub, because I don’t view Christ words through that lens.
The dialogue document I posted a while back recognizes that we see His words through different lenses, but come away with the same belief - it is His body and blood.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

I got a new book recently by Charles P. Arand, Robert Kolb and James A. Nestingen, The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the Book of Concord (Fortress Press, 2012). One of the chapters is devoted to the Lord’s Supper and it quotes something called the “Wittenburg Concordia” which was composed by Melanchthon in 1536 when Martin Bucer led a delegation of south Germans to Wittenburg and there negotiated an agreement with Luther and his colleagues. It is cited in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:

We have heard how Martin Bucer has explained his own position and that of the other preachers who came with him from the [south German] cities regarding the holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.

They confess in the words of Irenaeus, that in this sacrament there are two things, one heavenly and one earthly. Therefore they hold and teach that with the bread and the wine the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, are distributed and received. Although they do not believe in a transubstantiation, that is, in an essential transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood, and they do not hold that the body and blood of Christ are localiter, that is, spatially enclosed in the bread or are permanently united in some other way apart from reception in the sacrament, they nevertheless admit that through the sacramental union the bread is the body of Christ, etc. For apart from reception – for example, when the bread is laid aside and kept in the tabernacle or carried about and put on display in the procession, as happens in the papacy – the body of Christ is not present.

Second, they hold that the institution of this sacrament, as it was performed by Christ, is effective throughout Christendom and that its power does not rest upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the minister who distributes the sacrament, nor upon the worthiness or unworthiness of the one who receives it because, as Saint Paul says, even the unworthy may receive the sacrament. Thus, they hold that the body and blood of Christ are truly distributed even to the unworthy, and that the unworthy truly receive the body and blood when the sacrament is conducted according to Christ’s institution and command. But they receive it to judgment as Saint Paul says, for they misuse the holy sacrament because they receive it without true repentance and without faith. For it was instituted for this reason, that it might testify that the grace and benefits of Christ are applied to those who truly repent and find comfort through faith in Christ and that these are the ones incorporated into Christ and washed in Christ’s blood.

According to Arand et al., “Although Bucer and Luther may not have understood this formulation of the doctrine of the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the same way, they were content to have come close enough, and they accepted the position of the other. Lutherans such as Johann Marbach, Nikolous Selnecker, and the other Concordists, believed its text reflected Luther’s position faithfully.”

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Hi Q,
As a “quia” Lutheran, I neither reject the FoC, nor subscribe to the position that it teaches consubstantiation, or impanation, or receptionism. The intention of the FoC is clearly expressed in the numerous descriptions of theologians and dogmaticians since the late 1500’s, virtually all of whom reject consubstantiation and accept the FoC.
As for the presence of Christ beyond the sacramental act, it is best to assume that it does, though Christ nor scripture provide us with guidance on the reliquae. The intention of the FoC is to state that Christ’s intent for the sacrament is to eat and drink. Reservation of the sacrament does not violate our beliefs, as witnessed by the fact that it is often done to take to the sick and shut-ins.

We have discussed this issue at some length before. I don’t think we need to tread too much over old ground. I will summarize my opinion about the term “consubstantiation” with relation to the Lutheran doctrine, which is more or less the same as KjetilK’s opinion, though I don’t intend to argue further about it.

(1) The term consubstantiation does not imply a local presence. Giving the word a meaning of local presence would be an arbitrary definition that wouldn’t make any sense for a number of reasons. First, transubstantiation is the older term, and consubstantiation has its meaning in analogy to transubstantiation. The doctrine of transubstantiation has nothing to do with a local presence and is incompatible with the idea of local presense. Therefore, there is no reason that consubstantiation would imply a local presence on that count. Secondly, from the etymology, there is nothing about the word which implies local presence. The word as two parts: “con,” meaning “with,” and “substantia,” or “substance.” The basic meaning is that the two substances exist with each other, or that they exist together, which is the explicit teaching of the Formula of Concord: “in the Holy Supper the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth” (FC VII.37). And of course there is also the stock Lutheran explanation: “in, with and under,” which is also given in the FC: “under the bread, with the bread, in the bread” (FC VII.35). The definition given by the Catholic Encyclopedia is as follows.

This heretical doctrine is an attempt to hold the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist without admitting Transubstantiation. According to it, the substance of Christ’s Body exists together wit the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine. Hence the word Consubstantiation. How the two substances can coexist is variously explained.

So when people like me, KjetilK, Catholic Answers apologist X, or just about anyone for that matter says that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, all we are saying is that they believe in the teaching of the Formula of Concord, that the two substances exist together in the sacrament. However, since Catholics are familiar with the idea of transubstantiation, it is easier to explain the Lutheran belief in an analogous way to what they already know. It is less readily apparent what “sacramental union” means.

(2) There is a different line of argument against the use of the term consubstantiation which I agree with, viz., that it is not an authentically Lutheran term. The Lutheran theologians never (as far as I know) claimed it as their own. They have their own term, sacramental union. I believe, where possible, that when we are speaking about a subject, we should use the customary language. An example might be that I wouldn’t say that Catholics believe in total depravity. Even though the way that most Protestants understand total depravity is not contrary to Catholic teaching (more or less), it is not a term that belongs to the Catholic tradition as far as I know.

I personally do not use the term consubstantiation when speaking to others about Lutheranism for this reason. The only exception is in threads like this, where I feel that the definition of sacramental union is in a discussion like this where it is necessary to distinguish it from transubstantiation.

(3) I also sympathize with the concern that the term consubstantiation might be misunderstood. Calvinists in particular have a penchant for claiming things like Lutherans believe in cannibalism. But I don’t think this is a good reason to reject a term. It’s reason to embrace and defend the term. The fathers of Ephesus did not say, “Nestorius has a point. The term Mother of God is potentially confusing and we should avoid it.” That was Calvin’s line of thought. Instead they dogmatized it and said, “If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore that the holy virgin is the mother of God (for she bore in a fleshly way the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema!” It is especially the case when people make claims that you or I believe in cannibalism that they have no interest in rational or fair discourse. They are only looking to smear you in any way possible and all the clarity in the world is not going to stop them from doing that. Additionally, your line of thinking, that sacramental union should not preclude a belief in transubstantiation, putting yourself closer to the Catholic doctrine than you were to begin with, is not going to win over any Calvinist polemicists, who save the worse of their venom for us Romanists.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

As for the Formula of Concord, I think we are mostly in agreement. I don’t think it teaches impanation or receptionism. I don’t think it teaches consubstantiation as you and a number of Lutheran theologians and bloggers define it. I think it teaches consubstantiation as I, KjetilK, the Catholic Encyclopedia and probably most others would. Where I think you and I part ways is that you have stated numerous times that the FC is compatible with the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, and that is utterly false. The FC explicitly rejects transubstantiation by term and by meaning.

A final consideration regarding your appeal to the Lutheran theologians is that it is not the teachings of the Lutheran theologians, but the contents of the Book of Concord that are normative for Lutheran doctrine. With receptionism, for example, there is the difficulty, which I brought up earlier, that multiple Lutheran theologians belonging to your denomination have taught receptionism while claiming to believe the doctrines of the Formula of Concord. Apparently the meaning of the FC is not clear even to the theologians. That aside, granted that the Lutheran theologians are probably a reliable guide for understanding the FC in general, I don’t think (off the top of my head) that there is any significant party of theologians that shares your position that transubstantiation is compatible with the FC. The only people can think of that I have seen suggest that (and these people are not theologians) are those who argue that the FC only rejected transubstantiation inasmuch as it rejected the Catholic Church’s use of philosophical terminology to define the Eucharist. Those who say this are most assuredly not reliable guides to understanding the FC since the FC never makes this argument.

As for the presence of Christ beyond the sacramental act, it is best to assume that it does, though Christ nor scripture provide us with guidance on the reliquae. The intention of the FoC is to state that Christ’s intent for the sacrament is to eat and drink. Reservation of the sacrament does not violate our beliefs, as witnessed by the fact that it is often done to take to the sick and shut-ins.

That is your opinion. It is not the teaching of the Church of Christ.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

If I don’t agree with the FC, then it’s because I’m wrong. I seek to accept the teachings and invite correction.

That’s your decision to pledge unconditional obedience to traditions of men. I know I would not subject my intellect the way you have to anything I thought was fallible.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I don’t think that is official Catholic teaching, is it? From what I’ve read in the Catechism, and from the words of the Popes, that would not be accurate.

No, I very much doubt that it is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I can’t cite any writing, papal or otherwise, saying it either. That doesn’t matter. The Catechism does not deny everything that it does not explicitly state. I have also read what I said written by others, and I’m sure I could pull up something if you thought it were necessary.

The reason I said that I did not think one could be a Christian (according to any common definition) and deny the reality of substance and accident is that it affects more than just belief in transubstantiation, but underpins all of Christian doctrine. I did not mean to say that I thought that one could not be ignorant of them or ignorantly deny them because it might be that this person still intuitively has a grasp of the correct opinion. Since we are talking about Lutherans, look at what the Lutherans have to say. They do not wait to introduce the terminology of substance until they are talking about transubstantiation. They introduce them right from the beginning, in the chapter on original sin. They are in particular responding to a criticism that they are neo-Manichaeans, by insisting that they do not believe in an evil substance.

Now, then, since it is the indisputable truth that everything that is, is either a substance or an accidens, that is, either a self-existing essence or something accidental in it, as has just been shown and proved by testimonies of the church-teachers, and no truly intelligent man has ever had any doubts concerning this, necessity here constrains, and no one can evade it, if the question be asked whether original sin is a substance, that is, such a thing as exists by itself, and is not in another or whether it is an accidens, that is, such a thing as does not exist by itself, but is in another, and cannot exist or be by itself, he must confess straight and pat that original sin is no substance, but an accidens.
(FC I.57)

The ideas of substance and accident are not merely abstract categories that have no bearing on the real world. The distinction between substance and accident is absolutely necessary to see the world correctly. This is chiefly because it is necessary to believe that there are definite things that objectively exist and that things can retain their identity even when they change. To deny this leads to absurdities such as saying that everytime you lose a cell or gain a cell that you are a different person, or less of you or more of you, or saying that there’s no such thing as change and all change is an allusion, or saying that existence is relative.

If there is no such thing as substance, who are we that have been redeemed? Lumps of cells? What is the human nature that Christ assumed? If there is no human essence, what makes the Incarnation different from angels who have assumed bodies? Basically, every doctrine of the Catholic faith becomes meaningless.

I guess the question for you is if you do not believe there is such a thing as substance and accident, what do you believe instead?

You have to accept the Catholic church’s description of transubstantiation which borrows concepts and labels from Aristotle (and other philosophers), and to accurately present the Catholic church’s teaching on why there would not be DNA present in the bread and wine after the consecration. There is no claim in transubstantiation that the accidents change, in fact it is the opposite.

That’s not what you asked. You asked about transubstantiation and if anyone has checked for DNA in the bread and wine, the answer is yes, but it was not found, nor would the Catholic Church teach it should be found.

The thing is, I don’t know very much about the Lanciano miracle, and I’m not sure exactly what the miracle of Lanciano is. It seems there are two possibilities. One, is that it is the Eucharist appearing as flesh and blood. That’s probably what you would first assume. What I think is more likely is that it is a piece of Christ’s flesh and blood, which is a different thing. And it would definitely be possible to extract DNA from a piece of Christ’s flesh (and perhaps it has been done).

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Kliska, you might also be interested in the Eastern Orthodox decree on the Eucharist from the Confession of Dositheus. They also confess the reality of transubstantiation in terms of substance and accident (there is no other way).

We believe the All-holy Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist, which we have enumerated above, fourth in order, to be that which our Lord delivered in the night in which He gave Himself up for the life of the world. For taking bread, and blessing, He gave to His Holy Disciples and Apostles, saying: “Take, eat; This is My Body.” {Matthew 26:26} And taking the chalice, and giving thanks, He said: “Drink you all of It; This is My Blood, which for you is being poured out, for the remission of sins.” {Matthew 26:28} In the celebration of this we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world. {John 6:51}

Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remains the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

Further, that the all-pure Body Itself, and Blood of the Lord is imparted, and enters into the mouths and stomachs of the communicants, whether pious or impious. Nevertheless, they convey to the pious and worthy remission of sins and life eternal; but to the impious and unworthy involve condemnation and eternal punishment.

Further, that the Body and Blood of the Lord are severed and divided by the hands and teeth, though in accident only, that is, in the accidents of the bread and of the wine, under which they are visible and tangible, we do acknowledge; but in themselves to remain entirely unsevered and undivided. Wherefore the Catholic Church also says: “Broken and distributed is He That is broken, yet not severed; Which is ever eaten, yet never consumed, but sanctifying those that partake,” that is worthily.

Further, that in every part, or the smallest division of the transmuted bread and wine there is not a part of the Body and Blood of the Lord — for to say so were blasphemous and wicked — but the entire whole Lord Christ substantially, that is, with His Soul and Divinity, or perfect God and perfect man. So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present; and His one Body and His Blood is in all the several Churches of the Faithful; and this not because the Body of the Lord that is in the Heavens descends upon the Altars; but because the bread of the Prothesis* set forth in all the several Churches, being changed and transubstantiated, becomes, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. For it is one Body of the Lord in many places, and not many; and therefore this Mystery is the greatest, and is spoken of as wonderful, and comprehensible by faith only, and not by the sophistries of man’s wisdom; whose vain and foolish curiosity in divine things our pious and God-delivered religion rejects.

*Ed. Note: GK: prothesis, “setting forth,” in Orthodox churches the liturgical act of preparing the bread and wine for the Divine Liturgy or Eucharist.]

Further, that the Body Itself of the Lord and the Blood That are in the Mystery of the Eucharist ought to be honored in the highest manner, and adored with latria [Gk: adoration or worship*]. For one is the adoration of the Holy Trinity, and of the Body and Blood of the Lord. Further, that it is a true and propitiatory Sacrifice offered for all Orthodox, living and dead; and for the benefit of all, as is set forth expressly in the prayers of the Mystery delivered to the Church by the Apostles, in accordance with the command they received of the Lord.

[Ed. Note: The Greek term latria refers to the highest form of adoration or worship and is directed only to God, as opposed to dulia, “veneration” of the saints, and hyperdulia, “highest veneration” of Mary.]

Further, that before Its use, immediately after the consecration, and after Its use, What is reserved in the Sacred Pixes* for the communion of those that are about to depart * is the true Body of the Lord, and not in the least different from it; so that before Its use after the consecration, in Its use, and after Its use, It is in all respects the true Body of the Lord.

[Ed. Note: Pixes: a container in which the consecrated bread for Communion is placed so that it can be taken to those who cannot leave home.]*

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

[Continued]
Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord; neither is any accident of the bread, or of the wine, by any conversion or alteration, changed into any accident of the Body and Blood of Christ, but truly, and really, and substantially, doth the bread become the true Body Itself of the Lord, and the wine the Blood Itself of the Lord, as is said above.

Further, that this Mystery of the Sacred Eucharist can be performed by none other, except only by an Orthodox Priest, who has received his priesthood from an Orthodox and Canonical Bishop, in accordance with the teaching of the Eastern Church. This is compendiously the doctrine, and true confession, and most ancient tradition of the Catholic Church concerning this Mystery; which must not be departed from in any way by such as would be Orthodox and who reject the novelties and profane vanities of heretics. But necessarily the tradition of the institution must be kept whole and unimpaired. For those that transgress, the Catholic Church of Christ rejects and anathematises.
crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

According to Arand et al., “Although Bucer and Luther may not have understood this formulation of the doctrine of the true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the same way, they were content to have come close enough, and they accepted the position of the other. Lutherans such as Johann Marbach, Nikolous Selnecker, and the other Concordists, believed its text reflected Luther’s position faithfully.”

Hello, Thorolfr. Glad to see a new Lutheran face.

The Formula of Concord states that it is explaining the Lutheran understanding of the teaching of the Augsburg Confession, and that Luther was the most faithful expositor of that teaching. And I think that the eucharistic teaching of the FC does reflect what Luther wrote, or at least what he wrote at some point in his long career, even if his opinion appeared to change about certain questions (such as reservation).

As far as Bucer, I do not know anything about him from his own writings so I hesitate to say much. The common story is that he definitely fit more in the Calvinistic and Zwinglian camps on this issue and that, if he ever came close to the Lutheran opinion, he did not settle on it.

 

[pablope]

=pablope;12518309]

As I implied…it is in the name…we call it consub…Lutherans choose to call it another name…but basically the same meaning…

Of course it does to you, because you understand Christ’s words through the lens of transub. That’s not a criticism. In fact, its meant as a compliment. I don’t see it as Transub or consub, because I don’t view Christ words through that lens.
The dialogue document I posted a while back recognizes that we see His words through different lenses, but come away with the same belief - it is His body and blood.

Jon

But Transub is the correct doctrine, in a response to a heresy. SU was defined in opposition to transub…the heresy of the papists…

 

[KjetilK]

So when people like me, KjetilK, Catholic Answers apologist X, or just about anyone for that matter says that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, all we are saying is that they believe in the teaching of the Formula of Concord, that the two substances exist together in the sacrament.

This has been my point, except that I do not agree that ‘Lutherans’ hold this. Some Lutherans, yes, not all. And not all Lutherans are bound to the Formula of Concord, and this is not - as some of my Lutheran brethren have indicated - because they are less confessional, but because the Formula of Concord is a later addition that was never accepted by some Lutheran Churches, including in Norway, Denmark, Hesse, Zweibrücken, Anhalt, Pommeranian, Holstein, Sweden, Nürnberg, Strassburg, and Magdeburg.

If we reject the Formula of Concord as a binding, or adequate, expression of Lutheran belief, as I do, there is nothing - neither in the Small Catechism nor in Confessio Augustana - which indicates that you must reject transubstantiation and believe in consubstantiation (or sacramental presence).

However, since Catholics are familiar with the idea of transubstantiation, it is easier to explain the Lutheran belief in an analogous way to what they already know. It is less readily apparent what “sacramental union” means.

Yes, my point exactly. For the ‘uninitiated’ sacramental union sounds just as much as local presence as consubstantiation.

And one point, which I have made before, but not in this thread, is that we shouldn’t let ourselves be bullied by Calvinists, just as Catholics aren’t bullied to give up belief in transubstantiation and the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus weren’t bullied to give up their belief that Mary is the Mother of God.

 

[lylehoa_13]

I was raised Southern Baptist but attended a Presbyterian church for a while and am now a member of Lutheran church. I’m pretty sure that all three view the Eucharist and the bread and the wine somewhat differently and that all of them view them differently from Catholics. I’ve always been a little fuzzy about what different Christian groups believe the bread and wine represent in the Eucharist and would like to discuss this issue.

C?n bán g?p di?n tho?i LG Pro lite Dual D686 còn b?o hÃnh 5 tháng thegioididong.com. D?y d? ph? ki?n, còn m?i 95%. Giá cho em nó ra di là 3tr3 fix nh? cho anh em ? xa. Liên h? : 0967220124 ho?c 0917261445. Lê van vi?t Qu?n 9, TP.HCM.

 

[lylehoa_13]

I was raised Southern Baptist but attended a Presbyterian church for a while and am now a member of Lutheran church. I’m pretty sure that all three view the Eucharist and the bread and the wine somewhat differently and that all of them view them differently from Catholics. I’ve always been a little fuzzy about what different Christian groups believe the bread and wine represent in the Eucharist and would like to discuss this issue.

C?n bán g?p di?n tho?i LG Pro lite Dual D686 còn b?o hÃnh 5 tháng thegioididong.com. D?y d? ph? ki?n, còn m?i 95%. Giá cho em nó ra di là 3tr3 fix nh? cho anh em ? xa. Liên h? : 0967220124 ho?c 0917261445. Lê van vi?t Qu?n 9, TP.HCM.

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12520086]

But it is more than the name, it is the concept that we also reject.

But Transub is the correct doctrine, in a response to a heresy. SU was defined in opposition to transub…the heresy of the papists…

Curiously, I read a piece by Dave Armstrong about this very thing. He talks about the use of terms such as “papists” in one direction, and consubstantiation in the other. And makes a good point. If my Lutheran siblings expect Catholics to respect our rejection of the concept and term consubstantiation, we need also to refrain from terms such as “papist”.

You will not find that kind of language in my posts here.

Jon