Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Sacramental Union

[Thorolfr]

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.

I just take Confessio Augustana at its word. If I have to become a Roman Catholic in order to be faithful to Confessio Augustana, then so be it.

Is there something magical about Confessio Augustana that has preserved it from having any errors and require us as Lutherans to be faithful to everything in it? I also can’t help wondering why we must know how the body and blood are present in the Lord’s Supper. Is knowing that and confessing that important for our salvation? In reading Derek Wilson’s recent biography of Luther, it says that while Luther was in the Wartburg, Karlstadt was passing all sorts of new rules and making pronouncements about what people should believe. Wilson says that Luther “disapproved of Karlstadt’s tendency to proclaim as truths binding on all Christians some issues which, Luther believed, were matters of individual conscience.” The Roman Catholic Church, it seems to me, feels a need to make binding statements that all Catholics must believe on all sorts of matters that would, in my opinion, be better left to individual conscience. That’s why I don’t think that I could ever be a Catholic myself.

 

[pablope]

Is there something magical about Confessio Augustana

that has preserved it from having any errors and require us as Lutherans to be faithful to everything in it?

So you are saying, that in your own confessional documents, you get to pick and choose what you want to believe and bind yourself into?

I also can’t help wondering why we must know how

 

[Thorolfr]

So it is then the individual who is pope/magisterium all in one? This is the way protestantism is…

 

[Techno2000]

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.

michaeljournal.org/eucharist3.htm

 

[Thorolfr]

So you are saying, that in your own confessional documents, you get to pick and choose what you want to believe and bind yourself into?

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12535738]In America, yes. Not in Europe. I have frequently heard the ‘standard’ Lutheran teaching being described as consubstantiation.

Could you provide a link. It seems in the early days, Lutheran orthodoxy, this was not the case. But then, I don’t mean to speak for other communions within the tradition. I just think that’s not the intention of the reformers, first or second generation.

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.

I just take Confessio Augustana at its word. If I have to become a Roman Catholic in order to be faithful to Confessio Augustana, then so be it.

Understood. I don’t believe that was the intention - to follow all that the Holy Church of Rome teaches - else there is no need for the confession at all.

Thanks for the dialogue, Father. My respect and admiration for you grow each time we chat.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

Thanks for the dialogue, Father. My respect and admiration for you grow each time we chat.

Jon

It’s been an interesting discussion and I’ve enjoyed listening although mostly on the sidelines.

 

[JonNC]

=Thorolfr;12536346]Is there something magical about Confessio Augustana that has preserved it from having any errors and require us as Lutherans to be faithful to everything in it? I also can’t help wondering why we must know how the body and blood are present in the Lord’s Supper. Is knowing that and confessing that important for our salvation?

There is no magic, anymore than there is magic in the Apostle’s Creed. We confess these things because we believe them to be a true reflection of the faith.
I think, however, you’ve hit on the main point that Lutherans and Catholics, at least have been moving toward for half a century; that together we believe, teach, and confess that in the Eucharist is the true body and true blood, under the signs of bread and wine. Neither Lutherans or Catholics (if what I read here at CAF is true) pretend to know “how” this happens, but in order to counter faulty beliefs, expressions have grown around our knowledge of the doctrine of the real presence. These two expressions vary, but the bottom line for both is, “ThisIS my body”, “this IS my blood.”

In reading Derek Wilson’s recent biography of Luther, it says that while Luther was in the Wartburg, Karlstadt was passing all sorts of new rules and making pronouncements about what people should believe. Wilson says that Luther “disapproved of Karlstadt’s tendency to proclaim as truths binding on all Christians some issues which, Luther believed, were matters of individual conscience.” The Roman Catholic Church, it seems to me, feels a need to make binding statements that all Catholics must believe on all sorts of matters that would, in my opinion, be better left to individual conscience. That’s why I don’t think that I could ever be a Catholic myself.

That’s a rather Lutheran POV, but it doesn’t exclude the fact that there are doctrines Lutherans must believe, teach, and confess, in order to be Lutheran. The list is not so long as that of the Vatican, but there is a list, and the Augsburg Confession is the summary of that list in many ways.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=pablope;12536663]
So you are saying, that in your own confessional documents, you get to pick and choose what you want to believe and bind yourself into?

Hi Pablope,
Not speaking for Thorolfr, but no.

So that there is one belief, not a hodgepodge of beliefs…

For His Church, this hasn’t often been the case, but that is, of course, the goal.

…and it is a definite response to heresies.

Indeed.

So who gets to decide what is binding to all and what is left to the individual conscience? What are the limits? Have these been defined?

For Thorolfr, the ELCA. I will withhold further comment.

That is because the RCC is not a protestant church. It tries to fulfill this prayer:

John 17
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And this:
Eph4: 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Even though generally referred to as “protestant”, Lutherans should say, Amen.

So it is then the individual who is pope/magisterium all in one? This is the way protestantism is…

You know better than to speak of protestants in such broad terms. :tsktsk:

I just got chastised for NOT relying on my own opinion or interpretation.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

That’s a rather Lutheran POV, but it doesn’t exclude the fact that there are doctrines Lutherans must believe, teach, and confess, in order to be Lutheran. The list is not so long as that of the Vatican, but there is a list, and the Augsburg Confession is the summary of that list in many ways.

One thing that troubles me a little about saying that Lutherans or Catholics, etc. **must believe **certain things is that in most cases, true belief is not voluntary. You believe something or you don’t or you don’t have any strong opinion one way or another or you’re not sure if you believe something or not or you might have doubts about certain things. Just to give an example, the Apostles’ Creed says, “He
 descended
 into
 hell.” Do I truly believe that Jesus descended into hell? I say this every Sunday at church, but I don’t have any conclusive knowledge one way or another about this issue.

I’ve been reading Charles P. Arand, Robert Kolb and James Nestingen, The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the Book of Concord (Fortress Press, 2012), and on page 56 they write:

Perhaps the one clause in the Apostles’ Creed that has provoked more controversy than any other is the clause “descended into hell.” It appears to have entered the creed from the Eastern church. There it appears for the first time in the Fourth Formula of Sirmium, otherwise known as the Dated Creed of 359. But it had been a theme within the East for several centuries. Scholars are not sure precisely when the descent into hell entered the Apostles Creed in the West nor why.

Arand et al. then go into the various interpretations as to what this descent into hell was all about and what Christ might have been doing there. They also refer to some Bible verses that might have to do with this descent into hell, but most of them look fairly vague to me. So do I really believe that Jesus descended into hell? I don’t know what I believe. I’m still a little non-committal although I do still say “he descended into hell” when we recite the creed every Sunday.

 

[Techno2000]

Arand et al. then go into the various interpretations as to what this descent into hell was all about and what Christ might have been doing there. They also refer to some Bible verses that might have to do with this descent into hell, but most of them look fairly vague to me. So do I really believe that Jesus descended into hell? I don’t know what I believe. I’m still a little non-committal although I do still say “he descended into hell” when we recite the creed every Sunday.

jesus-passion.com/THE_PASSION6.htm#CHAPTER%20LIX

 

[KjetilK]

Could you provide a link.

No. I’m talking of experience here. I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t acknowledge consubstantiation as an accurate expression of sacramental union.

Understood. I don’t believe that was the intention - to follow all that the Holy Church of Rome teaches - else there is no need for the confession at all.

And that’s not what I said, anyway.

The claim made by the authors of Confessio Augustana - that is by the Lutherans, not by Rome - is that there was nothing in the first part of the confession (art. 1-21) that was contrary to what had been taught by Rome up until the time the confession was written. The real difference was, in the words if the Lutherans, on the topics covered in the latter part of the confession (art. 22-28).

So there was a need for a confession, but not to express disagreement with Rome on the nature of the real presence. The intention of the first part was to make the case that, dogmatically, Lutherans did not teach contrary to neither ‘the Church Catholic’ nor ‘the Church of Rome.’ The intention of the second part was to point out that although there was agreement on the topics covered in the first part, there were important disagreement on the topics covered in the second.

I therefore see the Formula of Concord, the Wittenberg Concordat, etc. as a breach with Confessio Augustana.

 

[pablope]

Hi Pablope,
Not speaking for Thorolfr, but no.

You know better than to speak of protestants in such broad terms. :tsktsk:

I just got chastised for NOT relying on my own opinion or interpretation.

Jon

Force of habit…

But protestantism itself is such a broad term… …it could apply to any protestant…

 

[pablope]

One thing that troubles me a little about saying that Lutherans or Catholics, etc. **must believe **

certain things is that in most cases, true belief is not voluntary.

Is truth voluntary? Where is it ever in the Bible that to believe in truth is voluntary?

Is what to believe optional, according to one’s whims and caprices?

You believe something or you don’t or you don’t have any strong opinion one way or another or you’re not sure if you believe something or not or you might have doubts about certain things. Just to give an example, the Apostles’ Creed says, “He
 descended
 into
 hell.” Do I truly believe that Jesus descended into hell? I say this every Sunday at church, but I don’t have any conclusive knowledge one way or another about this issue.

 

[Thorolfr]

Is truth voluntary? Where is it ever in the Bible that to believe in truth is voluntary?

 

[benjohnson]

“He
 descended
 into
 hell.” Do I truly believe that Jesus descended into hell? I say this every Sunday at church, but I don’t have any conclusive knowledge one way or another about this issue.

As I understand it, we’re to profess the faith as received - while our belief and faith may wax and wane, it is what we are attempting to bind our will to that matters.

For example, as a physicist - I have a well-formed and private notion on the mechanism of our resurrected bodies in a potential afterlife. It involves lots of math.

But what I profess (and try to bind myself to) is God’s promise to us.

 

[pablope]

You can’t make yourself believe something through an act of will if you have doubts about it or have no information upon which to make any sort of informed decision.

 

[Thorolfr]

I do not think you have a window in what is going on in people’s hearts…

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;12537879]No. I’m talking of experience here. I haven’t met anyone who doesn’t acknowledge consubstantiation as an accurate expression of sacramental union.

It sounds like there is significant catechesis that needs to take place. That said, I suspect the ILC synods, SELK in Germany for example, probably do not speak in this way.

And that’s not what I said, anyway.

The claim made by the authors of Confessio Augustana - that is by the Lutherans, not by Rome - is that there was nothing in the first part of the confession (art. 1-21) that was contrary to what had been taught by Rome up until the time the confession was written. The real difference was, in the words if the Lutherans, on the topics covered in the latter part of the confession (art. 22-28).

So there was a need for a confession, but not to express disagreement with Rome on the nature of the real presence. The intention of the first part was to make the case that, dogmatically, Lutherans did not teach contrary to neither ‘the Church Catholic’ nor ‘the Church of Rome.’ The intention of the second part was to point out that although there was agreement on the topics covered in the first part, there were important disagreement on the topics covered in the second.

It seems that the confutators would disagree with your analysis, at least in some articles.

Jon

 

[pablope]

pablope;12538960:

On the issue of Christians, especially more liberal ones, who don’t always believe in the doctrines of the churches they attend, the well-known scholar of early Christianity Bart Ehrman had the following to say(p. 325) in his recent book How Jesus Became God

:

Bart Ehrman now considers himself agnostic, but this little anecdote of his was kind of illuminating and maybe it says something about more liberal churches.

Well…what is Bart Ehrman to you? Is he the authority to listen to?

Let me ask you…which would you rather read or learn from: Bart Ehrman or St. Francis of Assisi or Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna? or Pope John Paul II?