Consubstantiation vs Real Presence...

[Joshua G.]

I totally learned something new today. I had never realized that Consubstantiation was NOT an accepted term by Lutherans. Now, when digging deeper into how Lutherans view the Real Presence it seems (so far) that I was taught correctly by my pastor, but he labelled this consubstantiation and it seems that this was a misnomer.

I'm not going to speak any further because I would really like to hear what insight all of you have to offer on this. Feel free to explain even that which you assume I might already know. From there I will ask questions. This is not a challenge, I just want to understand correctly how to speak of Lutheran belief on this issue.

Joshua

 

[Tangible]

The "Lutherans believe in Consubstantiation" meme is all over the media - books, the web, everywhere. It's perpetuated mostly by Evangelicals who are ignorant of what Lutherans really believe, but want to sound informed.

Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, or Sacramental Union. Wikipedia actually has a pretty good article on it.

 

[Joshua G.]

Okay, I read the wiki article (on Real Presence) and it was pretty informative (although the Orthodox part seemed to be written by a myopic Catholic). But I want to be sure I understand because it seems like was described is what I always believed. So here is what I always believed as a Lutheran. I am putting it in my own words so as not to simply regurgitate what I am trying to more clearly understand:

When the bread and wine are consecrated, they are still bread and wine. However, the body and blood of Christ are truly present there in (with, in and under...).

This is not simply a spiritual representation of the body and blood of Christ. It truly is His flesh and blood that we are partaking in.

We don't try to understnad or explain why it doesn't look or feel like blood or flesh, we just accept that it is His body and blood (as Luther said: is is always is- or did he say rather ist ist immer ist ). And most certainly it is not a merely symbolic action or a memorial.

I assume Lutherans would say that they are participating in the one time sacrifice of Christ (that they are not sacrificing Christ again, but entering into that event which spans over all time). I am not sure if this last point is Lutheran. It may be obvious that I am using Orthodox language here and I apologize if this concept is offensive to Lutheran thought. My point is not to teach at all so please explain if anything here is "off" in the Lutheran mindset.

Except for the last part, I know that this is what I have always been taught as a Lutheran (LCMS) and firmly believed (and for this reason when I converted, the whole Real Presence thing in the EOC was a non-issue for me... it was like putting on a pair of comfortable shoes). And I feel that what I described above more or less accurately represents what I wikied (scroll down the Lutheran part).

The odd thing is that this was always referred to as consubstantiation. But it seems that I wasn't taught actual consubstatiation, but rather it was poorly applied to good Lutheran doctrine.

Please correct me on anything where I have been mistaken.

And, can any clarify for me in their own words what consubstatiation really is and where it differs from the Lutheran teaching? IF I am correct in what I said above, can you juxtappose consubstatiation to the language i used above? However, I totally could be way off above. Be gentle though. I was not attempting to write the official representation of what Lutherans believe. I am just trying to describe it in layman's terms because, honestly, theological talk takes a while for me to really "get". I'm just looking for something tangible so I apologize in advance if I unwittingly take this conversation in circles.

I appreciate your patience and time in answering my question.

Joshua

 

[DaRev]

Okay, I read the wiki article (on Real Presence) and it was pretty informative (although the Orthodox part seemed to be written by a myopic Catholic). But I want to be sure I understand because it seems like was described is what I always believed. So here is what I always believed as a Lutheran. I am putting it in my own words so as not to simply regurgitate what I am trying to more clearly understand:

When the bread and wine are consecrated, they are still bread and wine. However, the body and blood of Christ are truly present there in (with, in and under...).

This is not simply a spiritual representation of the body and blood of Christ. It truly is His flesh and blood that we are partaking in.

We don't try to understnad or explain why it doesn't look or feel like blood or flesh, we just accept that it is His body and blood (as Luther said: is is always is- or did he say rather ist ist immer ist ). And most certainly it is not a merely symbolic action or a memorial.

I would say that pretty much sums it up.

I assume Lutherans would say that they are participating in the one time sacrifice of Christ (that they are not sacrificing Christ again, but entering into that event which spans over all time). I am not sure if this last point is Lutheran. It may be obvious that I am using Orthodox language here and I apologize if this concept is offensive to Lutheran thought. My point is not to teach at all so please explain if anything here is "off" in the Lutheran mindset.

Lutherans don't use the word "sacrifice" in association with the Lord's Supper. "Sacrifice" is defined as that which we give to God. The Lord's Supper is a "sacrament" which is defined as that which God gives to us. Christ gives us His body and blood to eat and to drink for the forgiveness of sins.

And, can any clarify for me in their own words what consubstatiation really is and where it differs from the Lutheran teaching? IF I am correct in what I said above, can you juxtappose consubstatiation to the language i used above? However, I totally could be way off above. Be gentle though. I was not attempting to write the official representation of what Lutherans believe. I am just trying to describe it in layman's terms because, honestly, theological talk takes a while for me to really "get". I'm just looking for something tangible so I apologize in advance if I unwittingly take this conversation in circles.

"Consubstantiation", like "transubstantiation", is a term used to try and describe how the body and blood are present in the sacrament. It's more of a mechanical term. Lutherans do not attempt to explain that which Christ has not explained. We simply believe that it is what Jesus said it is and leave it at that. The term "sacramental union" is a more apt description in that it leaves the "mechanics" to God Himself. Sacramental union basically means that the union of the body and blood of Christ and the elements of bread and wine is from God and is a mystery.

 

[Joshua G.]

Thank you Da Rev.

That seems to support what I have always told others you believe (and I should say I hold a great respect for this POV, especially since it unabashedly affirms Real Presence. Many Orthodox and Catholics misunderstand and misrepresent what you believe and it is a true disservice to mutual understanding). I now know, however, that you do not (necesarily and not historically) hold to consubstantiation and I will from here on out refer to it as Sacramental Union when referring to your belief.

Would you say that through this sacrament you somehow participate in something outside of time? In the Orthodox Church it is a big belief that the Liturgy is participated in outside of time, due in large part to the Eucharist. Does that concept exist in the Lutheran liturgical/eucharistic mindset, is it contrary thereto or is it simply foreign (not contrary necessary, but not spoken of either... so, perhaps irrelevant)?

Thanks!

Joshua

 

[DaRev]

Would you say that through this sacrament you somehow participate in something outside of time? In the Orthodox Church it is a big belief that the Liturgy is participated in outside of time, due in large part to the Eucharist. Does that concept exist in the Lutheran liturgical/eucharistic mindset, is it contrary thereto or is it simply foreign (not contrary necessary, but not spoken of either... so, perhaps irrelevant)?

Thanks!

Joshua

I've not heard it described that way. In the Sacrament it is Christ who comes to us here and now.

 

[Joshua G.]

Thank you, DaRev.

 

[BigNorsk]

Joshua, You will notice of course that the Lutheran position on the real presence comes from scripture and an effort is made not to go beyond that as far as what is taught.

Maybe you would notice with the whole participation outside of time and so on that that too goes beyond scripture. Now maybe some Lutheran believes those things but it isn't something that one would teach as doctrine or dogma. Again an effort is made to stick to those things that are trustworthy. We don't generally have that big infusion of eastern mysticism into our thoughts.

Marv

 

[JTornado1]

Our pastor never calls it "consubstantiation," but "real presence."

 

[AngelusSax]

Maybe you would notice with the whole participation outside of time and so on that that too goes beyond scripture. Now maybe some Lutheran believes those things but it isn't something that one would teach as doctrine or dogma. Again an effort is made to stick to those things that are trustworthy. We don't generally have that big infusion of eastern mysticism into our thoughts.

I agree that it goes beyond Scripture. While I personally don't discount the notion (I think there is SOME room for mystic thought in this area), I wouldn't go so far as to teach it as dogma or doctrine. (Yes, I realize I'm ELCA, but I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in in fellowship).

 

[seajoy]

I agree that it goes beyond Scripture. While I personally don't discount the notion (I think there is SOME room for mystic thought in this area), I wouldn't go so far as to teach it as dogma or doctrine. (Yes, I realize I'm ELCA, but I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in in fellowship).

What mystic thought do you think there is room for?

 

[filosofer]

I agree that it goes beyond Scripture. While I personally don't discount the notion (I think there is SOME room for mystic thought in this area), I wouldn't go so far as to teach it as dogma or doctrine. (Yes, I realize I'm ELCA, but I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in in fellowship).

I think it probably is closer to say there is an element of mystery, not mystic thought, since sacramentum in Latin was used to translate μυστεριον (mystery).

 

[Joshua G.]

I think perhaps in the East it is just the logical conclusion (from and EASTERN pov) to address the fact that we are participating in the Sacrifice on Calgary and that that can only happen once (that is, Christ only gave one Sacrifice and has never been REsacrificed). On that important point I think Lutherans and Orthodox would staunchly agree (that there is no reSacrifice) be we do see the Sacrament as a participation in that sacrifice and, so, perhaps in some way, there is a timeless and mystical (not understandable with our human logic) element to the Liturgy.

I'm not trying to convince you that this should be part of Lutheran (western) thought. I'm just suggesting that perhaps the Eastern idea that the Liturgy is outside of time is not so much an official doctrine and certainlhy a dogma (we have very few of those) but reconciling the mystery.

So I guess when asking this question, I was thinking that perhaps the answer would be more along the lines of Angelus. I wasn't EXPECTING or demanding (in my mind) that it be that way.

Either way my question seems answered at least to a point. The concept MIGHT be compatible with Lutheranism, but it isn't a Lutheran concept.

Thanks guys. Not trying to stir up trouble.

Josh

 

[AngelusSax]

I think it probably is closer to say there is an element of mystery, not mystic thought, since sacramentum in Latin was used to translate μυστεριον (mystery).

That probably is better, yes. By today's "standards", Real Presence is seen as "mystic" by many. I hold to the possibility that we are partakers of the same eternal event of communion when we commune (based solely on "is" rather than "becomes"). Other than that, I have no "mystic" thoughts about communion, save the perceived-mysticism of the reality of the Real Presence.

 

[Kotton]

Mystery is a good word for it. We do not pretend to understand how the Lord's Supper can be at once the real body and blood of our dear Lord and at the same time really be bread and wine, just as we don't understand how He can be at once God and Man or how The Holy Trinity is One God but three Persons. Just as we don't really comprehend why God can love us and find us justified by Faith, nor why though we continue to be sinners He daily santifies us and calls us holy. Just how could God become an embryo, a fetus, a baby, a boy, and a man? How could God suffer and die for my sins? Just what do "eternal" and "all powerful' really, really mean? We don't pretend to understand we just believe for He has given us the gift of Faith. It is all an awsome and wonderful mystery. Thanks be to God!

 

[Joshua G.]

So it seems to me that both sides (Catholic and Confessional Lutheran) accept the Mystery. It's just that they percieve the Mystery a bit different. But where (I would argue) it matters most, both sides seem to agree: regardless of anything, it is indeed the Body and Blood of Christ for real because is is always is.