Hi Q,
Jon
I think it matters very much, when we have popes (rightly) calling different denominations, including non-liturgical denominations, brothers and sisters, and fellow Christians. It is the same thing that some protestants do to Catholic; question their Christianity even though we believe in the same God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the exact same way.
It is my understanding that there is an official teaching of the Catholic church, and denying that I, or anyone else that does not believe in a certain way of labeling bread/wine and body/blood are not Christian is not official teaching, nor what the current or past few popes believed or taught.From teaching philosophy, I can tell you it isn’t. The terms are pretty specific and linked to very specific perspectives, in this case they are linked to Platonic and Aristotelian ways of describing reality within Metaphysics (which is why, perhaps, that their use to talk about specific spiritual truths bothers me and not others). Philosophers who deny form, substance, accidents, etc… fully believe they see the world correctly without needing to believe what Plato, Aristotle and others from their schools of thought believed.
I think the conversation comes up in many ways with philosophy and the ancient Church. For example this topic came up the other day in conversation linked below. I don’t know I suppose for myself its understanding whats being said by the Church and perhaps from a different perspective.I think it matters very much, when we have popes (rightly) calling different denominations, including non-liturgical denominations, brothers and sisters, and fellow Christians. It is the same thing that some protestants do to Catholic; question their Christianity even though we believe in the same God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the exact same way.
From teaching philosophy, I can tell you it isn’t. The terms are pretty specific and linked to very specific perspectives, in this case they are linked to Platonic and Aristotelian ways of describing reality within Metaphysics (which is why, perhaps, that their use to talk about specific spiritual truths bothers me and not others). Philosophers who deny form, substance, accidents, etc… fully believe they see the world correctly without needing to believe what Plato, Aristotle and others from their schools of thought believed.
I prefer to stick with God’s way of talking about creation and reality, which is rooted in a Jewish frame of reference, including concepts such as nephesh. How God sees and decrees something that is living vs. something that is not, how God designed humans and what that means… all of these things have a grounding in Jewish thought and Jewish literature (both old and new testaments). For me, it is important to delve into these descriptions of Metaphysics, and not fall back on my own cultural fore-runners. That is one reason why I see a bit more I can agree with in certain Orthodox teachings, for example what is actually meant by symbolism, mystery, etc…
In short, my reply was to point out that your statement discounting some of your brothers and sisters in that way doesn’t seem to be inline with official Catholic teaching. As a protestant growing more interested in unity and recognizing the Body of Christ, I felt compelled to comment. I apologize if I misunderstood you.
Thank you for the links, will check them out!
But you don’t. You reject the term consubstantiation, but not the concept. The concept of consubstantiation is identical to the concept of sacramental union. To deny it is like proclaiming belief in the existence of orbs, yet rejecting the existence of balls.
Hi Father.
And for the umpteenth time, Lutherans reject this very idea.
Right words, wrong interpretation:
and
Consubstantiation, because, as one can see, the Lutheran understanding of “in,with, and under” is not a local co-presence. The FoC even states this.
Ok, I don’t understand then. In your post you speak of consub as being a local co-presence, (**“Consubstantiation means that, in the Eucharist, the substance of bread is present together with the substance of the body of Christ.” ** ) and here you say it is not.
What is it with all these appeals to authority? Why not address my arguments instead of saying ‘but everybody else says so’?
Not if they follow the FC. That is almost verbatim the definition found therein. Please explain the difference without becoming a postmodernist.
The problem with this is that it implies that consubstantiation doesn’t refer to the object, but to the mode, yet presents not argument for that position. The premise behind the argument, here in the words of Carpsov, is that sacramental union is not consubstantiation, since it refer to OBJECT, not MODE. The hidden premise, then, is that consubstantiation refers to MODE, not OBJECT. There is nothing in the Latin word consubstantiatio that suggests this. So why should I accept that?
And neither is consubstantiation.
So you reject the FC, then? The FC states, verbatim, that in the Eucharist “the two substances, the natural bread and the true natural body of Christ, are present together here upon earth.” If my sentence implies local co-presence, then so does this. If the sentence in the FC doesn’t imply local co-presence, then neither does consubstantiation.
Some Lutherans, not all. I do reject it, but that is because I am convinced that transubstantiation is better attested (than consubstantiation/sacramental union) both in Scripture and in the Catholic Tradition (as I have already said in this discussion, here and here). Allow me to make the case again.
Quite right that the doctrine does not bind either teaching. But, taken everything it says for granted, I don’t see it addressing the points disputed in this thread.
According to your hermeneutic, when KjetilK says, “the substance of bread is present together with the substance of the body of Christ,” the opinion he is describing is that of a “local co-presence,” even though he explicitly said that it was not the intention.
I think that the Church’s application of the word Christian to those outside visible Communion with the Church is often confusing to non-Catholics. You said, “we believe in the same God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the exact same way.” That is certainly a good thing, but the use of the term Christian does not primarily signify a sharing of a common minimum of doctrine. It is actually a primarily sacramental statement, an acknowledgement of the validity of Protestant baptisms. See for example the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism, which explains this.I think it matters very much, when we have popes (rightly) calling different denominations, including non-liturgical denominations, brothers and sisters, and fellow Christians. It is the same thing that some protestants do to Catholic; question their Christianity even though we believe in the same God, The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the exact same way.
I don’t find it confusing at all… I do find your stance, or your statements, on the subject confusing given the official position of the RCC as explained through the CCC and several very well written encyclicals by the most recent Pontiffs, which I urge my fellow non-Catholics who have not done so, to read, as not only are we acknowledged to be fellow brothers and sisters, but also in imperfect communion with the RCC itself (which you cite and then seemingly disagree with previously in trying to say non-liturgical protestants who don’t believe in using the Aristotelian terms, such as substance and accident, are not Christian, and now saying that perhaps they are… hence the confusion).
in short, it is not like cars where Protestants are the basic model of Christians and Catholics are the deluxe model.
You and I (and perhaps you and others in your church) are not going to agree here, so in order to avoid uncharitable argumentation, I’ll wish you a Happy Thanksgiving, and bow out. Thank you for your time.
I do not understand this. Is it not the practice of our tradition to refer back to our theologians, and the Church Fathers to understand our faith? Is that not what separates our tradition from the Bible only folks? I expect our Catholic siblings to refer to St. Thomas Aquinas, and others.
The term and teaching has been rejecting since the writing of the FoC. The FoC clearly rejects it.
You seem to be under the impression that a Latin “definition” of the term is the “teaching(s)” that the term has been used to represent. If Lutherans accept the term, then we are accepting the teaching(s) that term has been used to describe, which I have provided here often.
Clearly I accept the FoC, but all of it, not the one part of it that you use.
All through the BoC, this is the point, that we as Lutherans believe one thing" “This [the bread] is my body”, “this [the wine] is my blood”.
Be clear here, Father, I am not the one making the accusations. I accept the fact that you believe Transubstantiation is a better expression of the real presence than consubstantiation. Even Luther’s main opposition to Transub. was the making it a doctrine. OTOH, you are trying to say that I believe something that I do not, that Lutherans who accept the FC believe something they do not, and is not there taught.
My point is that when I make an argument, I expect that my points are answered. Instead many of the answers have been, basically, this: “But many theologians disagree!” Yes, that may be the case. That doesn’t mean that my points become invalid.
Yes, I know that the FC claims to reject consubstantiation. My point is that this claim is incoherent, since there is nothing, in the definitions of, respectably, sacramental union and consubstantiation, to distinguish the two. My point is not a historical one, but a theological and philosophical one. When we analyse what consubstantiation implies and what sacramental union implies, we see that they are indistinguishable. And the logical thing is then to conclude that they are, indeed, the same thing.
No, I’m not. Not necessarily. I may believe it is. Or I may believe it is not. That changes nothing in my argument. It seems that you misunderstood my point.
Out of curiosity, even though you believe in transubstantiation, do you still believe, as stated in the Wittenburg Concordia of 1536 in which Luther and his colleagues reached an agreement with Martin Bucer and other south Germans, that “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.”
Why would I?
Its the case, Father, because what they say is true: Lutherans have never taught consubstantiation. And that seems to be the point.
I understand that you see it as incoherent. That’s one of the reasons I brought up the Lutheran theologians. They don’t see the claim as incoherent.
Actually, I think it is important. In the conclusion of the Augsburg Confession, the reformers claim that nothing they teach is outside the Church Catholic. If Lateran Four is outside the Church Catholic, there would be no contradiction.
Father, by your approach here t the UAG, it seems you have to accept Lateran Four, since The Church of Rome does.
And I’ve provided arguments as to WHY the claim is incoherent. It would be good if anyone could answer those points, specifically. This is a forum for debate, after all.
But Confessio Augustana doesn’t merely appeal to ‘the Church Catholic.’ It also appeals to ‘the Church of Rome,’ insofar as it has taught on the topics covered in the first part of Confessio Augustana.
Hi Father,
The Church of Rome believes in Transubstantiation dogmatically, binding the conscience of the believer to it. Is that what you think Augsburg is then saying, when it claims that there is nothing contrary to the Church Catholic in what we believe, teach, and confess?
In America, yes. Not in Europe. I have frequently heard the ‘standard’ Lutheran teaching being described as consubstantiation.
That is what I’m saying, yes. If Confessio Augustana, in its 10th article, does not teach transubstantiation, then there IS something in Confessio Augustana art. 1-21 that “varies from … the Church of Rome.” But the claim made by Confessio Augustana is that these articles, including article 10, does NOT teach contrary to Rome, on this issue.