COMMUNION: Does "is" mean "is?" Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical

[Josiah]

Albion,


1. What I conveyed is EXACTLY what is taught in our Confessions and in all my Lutheran doctrine books and what was taught in my Doctrine class...


2. "Consubstantiation" is a very technical term, from Catholic Scholasticism, referring to a particular Scholastic theory. It is associated only with one major theologian - a Roman Catholic. Lutherans pretty much reject ALL the various inventions of this medieval, Catholic movement. As I expressed. While it is true that the WORD itself (ignoring what it refers to) simply means "with" "substance" and as such COULD (perhaps) be applied to the 3 times in Luther's life when he used the word "with" in this context, but using this very technical Catholic term for the Lutheran view would be misleading and inaccurate. IF you so request, I can verbatim quote many places where Lutheranism boldly condemns Consubstantiation (it's rather technical but I have quite a list of quotes available).


3. It is important to not confuse what Luther said with Lutheran theology. They are not identical (for one thing, Luther said a LOT - a whole LOT - and often such evolves, changes and even contradicts). Yes, Luther personally used the iron in the fire illustration - but the point was simply to say that while there is a union, there is no blending into a third realtiy: in so doing, he wasn't really addressing Transubstantiation but yet another theory of his day. Luther, personally, at times responds to bad theories... and often uses illustrations.... that doesn't make his respond or illustrations Lutheran doctrine.


4. I'm at a disadvantage since I don't know exactly what the official dogma of the Anglican Commuinion is on this point (frankly, I didn't know it has one - except to officially reject Transubstantiation). I know from experience (and as told by my teachers) that there are Anglicans with the Lutheran view here (and with the Zwinglian view) but sorry - I can't comment on how Real Presence may or may not be the same an the Anglican view. Perhaps Sean (our newest member) can shed some light on that as he recently converted from Anglican to Lutheran and MAY have some insight on this matter.


I hope that helps.


- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

OK. A couple of points...

The Anglican view is that the Eucharist is the Real Presence understood in a heavenly and spiritual way. That's it.

I am not insisting upon Consubstantiation, the term, as being what Lutherans believe, but just that it has been used so often by others to describe their POV that I thought it must have some relevancy. Here, FWIW, is the Wikipedia entry and the footnotes refer to the Augsburg Confession:

["Lutherans believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist,[23][24] that the body and blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms"[25][26] of the consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants orally eat and drink the holy body and blood of Christ Himself as well as the bread and wine (cf. Augsburg Confession, Article 10) in this Sacrament."


As I read it now, it looks a lot like what I was outlining for you.

That said, I do appreciate your assistance with this matter and it has been helpful.





.

 

[Josiah]

I am not insisting upon Consubstantiation, the term, as being what Lutherans believe, but just that it has been used so often by others to describe their POV that I thought it must have some relevancy. Here, FWIW, is the Wikipedia entry: "Lutherans believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, that the body and blood of Christ are "truly and substantially present in, with and under the forms" of the consecrated bread and wine (the elements), so that communicants orally eat and drink the holy body and blood of Christ Himself as well as the bread and wine in this Sacrament."

Yup, nothing about the medieval, western, Roman Catholic, Scholastic invention of "Consubstantiation." See post 521.

That said, I do appreciate your assistance with this matter and it has been helpful.

Thank you.




.

 

[Albion]

Yup, nothing about the medieval, western, Roman Catholic, Scholastic invention of "Consubstantiation." See post 521.

Alright. I said that the word Consubstantiation isn't critical in any of this, but that statement quoting and paraphrasing the Augsburg Confession certainly seems to mirror the concept that I described and you denied ("communicants orally eat and drink the holy body and blood of Christ Himself as well as the bread and wine in this Sacrament.").

 

[Lamb]

Alright. I said that the word Consubstantiation isn't critical in any of this, but that statement quoting and paraphrasing the Augsburg Confession certainly seems to mirror the concept that I described and you denied ("communicants orally eat and drink the holy body and blood of Christ Himself as well as the bread and wine in this Sacrament.").

Consubstantiation misses the point of the "sacramental union" between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.

 

[Albion]

Consubstantiation misses the point of the "sacramental union" between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.

How so?

 

[Josiah]

How so?

"Sacramental Union" is a very common, very popular Lutheran framework for this discussion - but it's not Lutheran doctrine. Yes, Lutherans will speak of the bread and body being real and present and united but not blended ... Lutherans will speak of the wine and blood being real and present and united but not blended, in THAT way the concept of Sacramental Union is Lutheran (in understanding if not doctrine). Lutheranisms embrace of the wine and bread AFTER the Consecration is simply an acceptance of the texts, that "is" means "is" and what follows the "is" therefore "is." It has no more significance than that. And there is no dogma as to the issue of WHERE or HOW or WHEN.


Luther's very, very, very rare use of the words "in" and "with" and "under" (albeit one is in the Small Catechism!) is not Lutheran doctrine. There are some sermon illustrations that Luther used that are well known but they too are not Lutheran doctrine.


The Lutheran doctrine is "Real Presence." (not "Sacramental Union") This accepts all the words - "is" means is.... "body" means body.... "blood" means blood.... "forgiveness" means forgiveness. Lutherans consider it a divine miracle - and like most miracles, it is beyond physics and should not be contained within worldly or human limitations and aspects. Like everyone prior to the late Middle Ages, we refer to this as "mystery." Lutherans are very uncomfortable with the modern RCC, with Zwingli, with latter-day Calvinists and their imposition of human philosophy and current understanding of physics and the limitations they place stemming from their convictions of what "can't be true." And the attempts of the medieval, western, Roman Catholic "Scholasticss" many theories to subject the miracle and mystery to secular philosophies, pre-science concepts of physics and the limitations they impose upon it. My doctrine class teacher used this as one of several examples of where Lutherans distance ourselves from "over-thinking" and "under-believing."


Luther, of course, was a Reformer and not a Revolutionary - he started with the conviction that things were sound and good, and desired to reform only what clearly was not. Real Presence was a universal, historic understanding - a simple acceptance of a divine miracle and mystery. Yes, it is true, seldom before was much notation made of the bread and wine AFTER the Consecration (although we DO have examples of that - including a bold one from a Pope).... but Luther's mention of such is simply one of the ways that he (and SO MANY OTHERS) rejected the pop theory of Transubstantiation, which is very much about the bread and wine AFTER the Consecration: to deny them (in any full or regular or usiual sense, the dogmatization of Aristotle's theory of accidents); to respond to that denial and focus on the bread and wine, Luther had to mention them. But he rarely does... they aren't significant.... indeed, he finds all of Transubstantiation to be unnecessary AT BEST and a real danger to Real Presence in practice: after all, Real Presence rests entirely on "is" meaning "is" and what follows the "is" as being.... what Transubstantiation does is eliminate the meaning of "is" as "is" and deny (fully) that what comes after that verb is (in ANY usual sense) - if "is" has nothing to do with presence in a real sense then Real Presence crumbles. This was HARDLY Luther's individual issue - there were many in his day that rejected that medieval Roman Catholic invention of the "Scholastics" for exactly the same reasons. Many noted that destroying the miracle and mystery by undermining the words of the text would lead to the denial of Real Presence.... and of course, Zwingli and some latter-day Calvinists proved them right.




.

 

[Albion]

"Sacramental Union" is a very common, very popular Lutheran framework for this discussion - but it's not Lutheran doctrine. Yes, Lutherans will speak of the bread and body being real and present and united but not blended ... Lutherans will speak of the wine and blood being real and present and united but not blended, in THAT way the concept of Sacramental Union is Lutheran (in understanding if not doctrine.

...the POV that is most often called Consubstantiation, although the term is generally rejected by Lutherans themselves, no?

However, I get the point that if Consubstantiation amounts to some kind of a halfway Transubstantiation, the technical, mechanical approach to the change is opposed in favor of just seeing the change as miraculous and beyond explanation.






.

 

[Lamb]

...which POV is most often called Consubstantiation, although the term is out of favor with Lutherans, no?

Consubstantiation does not describe properly what Lutherans believe...so Lutherans do not believe in it.

Epitome of the Formula of Concord
"We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as they read, according to the letter, so that the bread does not signify the absent body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that, on account of the sacramental union, they [the bread and wine] are truly the body and blood of Christ."

 

[Josiah]

...the POV that is most often called Consubstantiation, although the term is generally rejected by Lutherans themselves, no?

Again..... Consubstantiation is a THEORY invented by the very same "Catholic Scholastics" that gave us Transubstantiation. It was one of MANY inventions they came up with, usually to try to remove "mystery" and "explain it away" using the pop secular ideas of the day, the secular philosphies and pre-science ideas popular in middle ages Europe. Lutherans generally denounce the whole thing. It was a CATHOLIC thing. It is associated with a CATHOLIC theologian. Eventually, this theory fell out of popularity in Catholicism as another competing theory, Transubstantiation, gained popularity.

Again.... yes.... if one totally ignores what the title refers to and ONLY look at the WORD .... one could see at as kind of Lutheran. Four times in Luther's life, he used that word "with' in reference to the Sacrament (I've posted on that already), and I admit, you can find Lutherans who have used that word (errantly, I believe). But words MEAN THINGS.... more than a mere look at the letters in the word might suggest.

Again.... Lutherans have gone to great lengths to denounce that medieval CATHOLIC invention..... I can give you extensive (and rather technical) quotes on this if you insist.

However, I get the point that if Consubstantiation amounts to some kind of... technical, mechanical approach .... is opposed in favor of just seeing [this] as miraculous and beyond explanation.

I admit I changed what you said.... but so that I can simply write "Amen."



Thank you.


- Josiah






.

 

[Albion]

Again..... Consubstantiation is a THEORY invented by the very same "Catholic Scholastics" that gave us Transubstantiation. It was one of MANY inventions they came up with, usually to try to remove "mystery" and "explain it away" using the pop secular ideas of the day, the secular philosphies and pre-science ideas popular in middle ages Europe. Lutherans generally denounce the whole thing. It was a CATHOLIC thing. It is associated with a CATHOLIC theologian. Eventually, this theory fell out of popularity in Catholicism as another competing theory, Transubstantiation, gained popularity.

Again.... yes.... if one totally ignores what the title refers to and ONLY look at the WORD .... one could see at as kind of Lutheran. Four times in Luther's life, he used that word "with' in reference to the Sacrament (I've posted on that already), and I admit, you can find Lutherans who have used that word (errantly, I believe). But words MEAN THINGS.... more than a mere look at the letters in the word might suggest.

Again.... Lutherans have gone to great lengths to denounce that medieval CATHOLIC invention..... I can give you extensive (and rather technical) quotes on this if you insist.

It really doesn't matter to me what the origin of the word is or was.

It appears to correctly describe the Lutheran position as laid out in something authoritatively Lutheran--the Augsburg Confession--not just something that Luther mused about on some occasion. Take away the word, substitute another or none at all...and voila, you have real bread & wine and real body & blood, joined.

 

[Lamb]

It really doesn't matter to me what the origin of the word is or was.

It appears to correctly describe the Lutheran position as laid out in something authoritatively Lutheran--the Augsburg Confession--not just something that Luther mused about on some occasion. Take away the word, substitute another or none at all...and voila, you have real bread & wine and real body & blood, joined.

No. Consubstantiation keeps them separated which is not a sacramental union. In Consubstantiation you have bread, you have wine, you have the Lord's body and you have the Lord's blood. In the Lutheran belief of the real presence there is a sacramental union of the bread and body and the wine and blood.

 

[Josiah]

It really doesn't matter to me what the origin of the word is or was.

The meaning of the word should matter.

Again, for 500 years, Lutherans have specifically rejected Consubstantiation and all that theory imposes.



Friend, words mean things - beyond or even in variance to the word parts. The premise you seem to be working under.... that "Consubstantiation" just means "something existing with something" and thus that's it's meaning ... is not correct. By that premise, "automobile" has one meaning: self propelled, thus a horse is an automobile because a horse is self-propelled. See the error? Words nearly always have a meaning that is NOT simply the meaning of the prefix, stem and suffix of the word. The theory of "Consubstantiation" has a meaning - and it's not simply "something co-exists with something else." The very reality that Lutherans have so boldly and presistently for 500 years denounced that medieval Roman Catholic invention of "Scholasticism" should be enough to indicate that Lutheranism does not teach it.

It appears to correctly describe the Lutheran position

No. The Roman Catholic medieval "Scholastics" got it WRONG with all their Eucharistic theories, including the Consubstantiation one. Which is why Lutherans have consistenly rejected it. It cannot the the Lutheran position when Lutheranism has so consistently, boldly and persistently reject and denounce it.

the Augsburg Confession--not just something that Luther mused about on some occasion.

The Augsburg Confession never once even mentions the Catholic Scholastic theory of Consubstantiation. And Lutherans for 500 years have denounced and repudiated that Catholic invention.


I have related the Lutheran position.




.

 

[Albion]

The meaning of the word should matter.

Again, for 500 years, Lutherans have specifically rejected Consubstantiation and all that theory imposes. No. The Roman Catholic medieval "Scholastics" got it WRONG with all their Eucharistic theories, including the Consubstantiation one. Which is why Lutherans have consistenly rejected it. It cannot the the Lutheran position when Lutheranism has so consistently, boldly and persistently reject and denounce it.

Well, I have read the Augsburg Confession's description and also your explanation; and they match up with what Consubstantiation is taken to mean except perhaps for that matter of the b&w and body & blood being joined or, if not that, just together. Is that supposed to be the critical difference? And it is not as though I have been trying to stick the term on anyone.

The Augsburg Confession never once even mentions the Catholic Scholastic theory of Consubstantiation.

I think that comment verifies what I was saying above.








.

 

[Lamb]

Well, I have read the Augsburg Confession's description and also your explanation; and they match up with what Consubstantiation is taken to mean except perhaps for that matter of the b&w and body & blood being joined or, if not that, just together. Is that supposed to be the critical difference? And it is not as though I have been trying to stick the term on anyone.

Did you see my post with the quote from the book of concord? The sacramental union IS important which is why Lutherans do not believe in Consubstantiation.

 

[Albion]

Did you see my post with the quote from the book of concord? The sacramental union IS important which is why Lutherans do not believe in Consubstantiation.

Certainly I did! However, the difference seems to me to be mainly in the terminology that's used. If the elements are all present, whether side by side, laminated, or whatever, and the communicant receives all four...

That would not be what has been described to me, i.e. that it is a mystery that cannot be explained scientifically or mechanically or else that it is believed to be the Real Presence, period, with no additional explanation or description needed.

It appears instead to be the result of an attempt to find a halfway house between the Catholic view we call Transubstantiation and the purely representational approach of the Radical Reformers.

 

[Josiah]

Certainly I did! However, the difference seems to me to be mainly in the terminology that's used. If the elements are all present, whether side by side, laminated, or whatever, and the communicant receives all four. That would not be what has been described to me, i.e. that it is a mystery that cannot be explained scientifically or mechanically or else that it is believed to be the Real Presence, period, with no additional explanation or description needed.It appears instead to be the result of an attempt to find a halfway house between the Catholic view we call Transubstantiation and the purely representational approach of the Radical Reformers.

No.


I know of no Lutheran who would argue that we do NOT receive 4 things: Bread, wine, blood of Christ, body of Christ.
The MYSTERY is in the HOW, WHERE, WHEN - the physics questions which Lutherans leave alone (as did Jesus, Paul and Christians until many centuries later).
THAT Christ is present is seen as a divine miracle... and like all miracles, isn't subject to physics or philosophy. We can't tell God HOW He must do it and what He can and can't do. The HOW is mystery.


The Lutheran view is simply the ancient one... and one that simply believes what is said: "Is" = is (it has to do with being, existing, presence, reality).... "body" = body..... "blood" = blood..... "forgiveness" = forgiveness. That's it, that's all. It's called Real Presence and that IS the Lutheran teaching. Luther used some sermon illustrations (one made it into the Confessions) but illustrations are not dogma. Some Lutheran Church Fathers spoke of "Sacramental Union" but that's not dogma, either.


Lutherans do not dogmatically deny or limit anything in the Eucharistic texts.
Lutherans do not impose any (wrong) human, secular, pagan philosophies or pre-science concepts to deny anything or change anything in the texts.
Lutherans do not dogmatically tell God HOW He performs His miracle or what He is unable to do.
Lutherans do not teach the RCC theory of Consubstantiation or anyone else's invention of any "...ation."
Lutherans teach Real Presence, as described earlier.


While Lutherans place ALL the emphasis on the presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus (and therefore forgiveness of Jesus) - even going so far as to say "the bread IS the Body of Christ" etc., there is NOT a dogmatic denial of anything in the Eucharistic texts, in that way the Lutheran position is different from the post-Trent RCC Eucharistic Dogma (Transubstantiation) and the Zwingli (No Presence) dogma.




.

 

[Albion]

I know of no Lutheran who would argue that we do NOT receive 4 things: Bread, wine, blood of Christ, body of Christ.
The MYSTERY is in the HOW, WHERE, WHEN - the physics questions which Lutherans leave alone (as did Jesus, Paul and Christians until many centuries later).
THAT Christ is present is seen as a divine miracle... and like all miracles, isn't subject to physics or philosophy. We can't tell God HOW He must do it and what He can and can't do. The HOW is mystery.


The Lutheran view is simply the ancient one... and one that simply believes what is said: "Is" = is (it has to do with being, existing, presence, reality).... "body" = body..... "blood" = blood..... "forgiveness" = forgiveness. That's it, that's all.

I don't want to be argumentative, but I am of the opinion, after all of this, that the explanation that has been given here repeatedly about the nature of the change (four elements, physical flesh, etc. but still bread and wine, etc. etc. ) says the exact opposite of what you are insisting it amounts to.

 

[Josiah]

I don't want to be argumentative, but I am of the opinion, after all of this, that the explanation that has been given here repeatedly about the nature of the change (four elements, physical flesh, etc. but still bread and wine, etc. etc. ) says the exact opposite of what you are insisting it amounts to.

Where do you see the word "change" in anything Lutheran on this? What nature of what change?

Yes, what is PRESENT changes because Christ comes - but there is no "explanation" in Lutheranism about how that happens.... and no denials of what can't happen...

How do you conclude that Lutherans NOT having ANY explanation as to the mechanics of the miracle IS in fact a dogmatic mandate on the mechanics of how it happens?

 

[Albion]

Where do you see the word "change" in anything Lutheran on this? What nature of what change?

You have told me that bread and wine acquire something else or are accompanied by or joined to something else (Christ's real presence), so there must be a change that takes place or else you would have the minister distributing only blessed pieces of bread and some wine. That would be to adopt the Zwinglian POV that you dislike.

Yes, what is PRESENT changes because Christ comes - but there is no "explanation" in Lutheranism about how that happens.

Well, you carefully explained a formula (four parts, with two being added to the two we start with, plus a certain relationship of two of them to the other two, etc.) so that seems much like the mechanics of Transubstantiation, although clearly not identical to Transubstantiation. And there must be a point at which it is believed the change occurs. Is that when the minister pronounces the Words of Institution?