Talk:Sacramental union

To further dialogue and understanding I offer this entry into Wikipedia, the most informative resource on the web IMHO. drboisclair 20:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Arch O. LaTalk TCF

Consubstantiation change
An anonymous editor changed the final paragraph of the article to this:
 * This view is correctly identified as consubstantiation in that it asserts the simultaneous presence of four essences in the Eucharist: that of the consecrated bread, the Body of Christ, the consecrated wine, and the Blood of Christ. However, it differs in that disagrees with some modern theologians in the ELCA that do not assert a "local" (three dimensional, circumscribed) presence of the Body and Blood in the sacramental bread and wine respectively.

This editor is a supporter of the Real Presence and is a strong supporter of Luther's position, but this editor does not realize that orthodox Lutheranism rejects a "Capernaitic" or cannibalistic understanding of the real eating of the body and blood of Christ. If the ELCA rejects a "local" presence, they are in line with orthodox Lutheranism in the Lutheran Confessions (cf. Formula of Concord VII), which rejects a "local" presence of Christ's Body and Blood. I reverted this article to the way it had been stated. We also have a NPOV issue here as well. drboisclair 20:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't we ask the ELCA what they believe? Of course, the full communion agreements complicate things. Here is what I found: official text of the Full Communion agreement Arch O. LaTalk TCF 23:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: you can also ask questions here. Arch O. LaTalk TCF

I am familar with the passage you cite. We believe it is not Capernaitic because it is through a Divinly Instituted Miracle that happens spiritually through the Lord's Word, not because we don't eat the physical Body and Blood of Jesus under physical bread and wine.--192.160.64.49 19:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous edit
The anonymous editor 192.160.64.49 has again reverted this article to the text stated above. This editor claims that this article is not NPOV and "liberal." This betrays this editor's own non NPOV position. I wonder if the editor understands Lutheran theology. Lutheran theology rejects the notion that their eucharistic doctrine is consubstantiation. drboisclair 04:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the anon editor has it exactly backwards. It's the conservative Lutherans who reject the consubstantiation label. Many liberal Lutherans (including the pastor in charge of my confirmation) accept the "consubstantiation" label to distinguish Lutheran theology from the Catholic transubstantiation, without accepting the philosophical implications. So, is Sacramental union consubstantiation? Yes and no&mdash;it depends upon how one defines the term "consubstantiation". To quote the consubstantiation article, "Some Lutherans do use the term "consubstantiation" to refer to this belief, but the theology intended is not the same as the philosophical theory described above." Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalk TCF 08:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My pastor believes in consubtantation, and believe me, he is anything but liberal. For example, he believes Scripture teaches against the use of female lectors during a church service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.64.49 (talk • contribs)


 * My pastor at the time was liberal enough to give paedocommunion to his young children (I think they were five and seven), over the objection of several members of our congregation. The real question is, did Martin Luther ever use the term "consubstantiation"? I honestly don't know. In our Catechism class, we were taught from Luther's Large Catechism and a textbook published by Augsburg Publishing House. After that, I simply took communion.


 * I also have to answer a statement that anon left on drboisclair's talk page:


 * "If you don't believe the WELS teaches consubstantiation, go to wels.net, and read their highly extensive Q&A section."


 * I read it. They deny consubstantiation. Let me quote from their website: Consubstantiation?

"Although some Lutherans have used the term 'consbstantiation' and it might possibly be understood correctly (e.g., the bread & wine, body & blood coexist with each other in the Lord's Supper), most Lutherans reject the term because of the false connotation it contains. For instance, the word 'consubstantial' is used by thelogians to desginate that God the Father and God the Son are one in essence or being. Applied to the Lord's Supper, consubstantiation is the view either that the body and blood, bread and wine come together to form one substance in the Lord’s Supper or that the body and blood are present in a natural manner like the bread and the wine. Lutherans believe that the bread and the wine are present in a natural manner in the Lord’s Supper and Christ’s true body and blood are present in an illocal, supernatural manner."


 * Notice the distinction between the "applied to the Lord's supper" and "Lutherans believe" sentences: "natural manner" vs. "illocal, supernatural manner" for Christ's true body and blood. Which is why WELS denies consubstantiation. The page goes on to deny impanation and quote from the Formula of Concord. I only wish the ELCA spelled out their position so clearly.


 * BTW I currently attend a WELS church. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF


 * Would the anonymous editor please register as a user and sign his/her posts? It's good to get to know someone we're working with.


 * On this issue, I've never seen a Lutheran theologian accept the term "consubstantiation" for the doctrine of the Real Presence. The latter is the term used in all that I've read and an open hostility to the term as used by Reformed authors to attack Lutheran teaching.


 * If we can find a citation from a Lutheran theologian that uses or defends the use of the term, then we can say something like: traditionally, Lutheran theologians have rejected the term consubstatiation for the doctrine of the Real Presence. In the 20th Century, some Lutheran theologians have defended the use of the term. (citation) --CTSWyneken 21:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict. I believe the anon is the same IP address you've been communicating with on your talk page, CTS. Theologians aside, I had a little more to say.


 * The LCMS position is implied in the question at the WELS website: "my LCMS pastors, who were very conservative, would say that consubstantiation is the best definition but not the most accurate and that there are subtle differences between the Lutheran beliefs on communion and the true definition of consubstantiation."


 * In short:
 * ELCA: Their website never mentions "consubstantiation" either pro or con, but my ALC/ELCA pastor used the term "consubstantiation."
 * LCMS: "Consubstantiation is the best definition but not the most accurate...there are subtle differences."
 * WELS: "Although some Lutherans have used the term "consbstantiation" (sic)...most Lutherans reject the term because of the false connotation it contains."


 * Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 21:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a quotation from J.T. Mueller's Christian Dogmatics in which he quotes a 17th Century orthodox Lutheran theologian: Against the misconstructions which the Reformed have put on the Lutheran doctrine of the sacramental union our dogmaticians have said (Hafenreffer): “The sacramental union is a) not a transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ; b) it is not a consubstantiation, or commixture of the two substances, but in both the bread and the wine the substance of the body and blood of Christ remains unmixed; c) nor is it a local or durable adhesion or conjunction to the bread and wine apart from the use of the Supper; d) nor is it an impanation, that is, the inclusion of some small corpuscle lying hid under the bread; e) nor is it, finally, a personal union of the bread and body of Christ, such as exists between the Son of God and the assumed humanity.” (Doctr. Theol., p. 571.) (p. 519-20). and The Lutherans very strenuously reject the charge that the real presence implies a local inclusion, or an impanation, or consubstantiation (localis inclusio, impanatio, cosubstantiatio). The Formula of Concord thus says (Thor. Decl., VII, 64): “For this command ‘Eat and drink’] cannot be understood otherwise than of oral eating and drinking; however, not in a gross, carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way.” (p. 528).drboisclair 22:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The New Catholic Encyclopedia equates "consubstantiation" with "impanation"! . All in all "consubstantiation" is a looking at the Real Presence in the way of the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity. I agree with the New Catholic Encyclopedia that it is a heresy. drboisclair 23:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the considerations of my concerns here. Thanks for explaining that consubstantiation could mean false positions that we reject, such as impanation. I was never taught that it could mean these false views. However, since the term is taught and understood by some in a different manner, attention much be made to those differences. Naturally, I don't think there is a piece of flesh inside the wafer! Franz Pieper clearly rejects that umbiblical notion, because the Bible says "body" not "a piece of my body." Of course the Body and Blood cannot be sensed or detected by reason and science. Of course the Real Presence gets there in a way nobody can comprehend-spiritually. But since the bread and the wine are physically there, the Body and Blood of Christ are also physically there. And no, by phyiscally, I don't mean a hunk of flesh. If you want an example of someone using the term consubstantiation in the lcms, try This congregational website. The reason the term physically is used is because Lutherans recieve Jesus in a physical manner in the sacrament. If Jesus is recieved in a physical manner, he is there in a physical manner. The term "spiritually" can be misunderstood as the Reformed opinion, in which communion, in Calvin's view, takes place as the soul ascends to heaven to feed on Christ's Divine Nature in heaven. Besides the denial of Jesus' word "is," this also means that Jesus can be seperated into a seperate "Divine Nature" and "Human Nature." You can't get one nature without the second nature being there with it. We must avoid the heresy of Nestorianism that Calvin seems to teach.--192.160.64.49 02:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bearing with me here. Even if I am at least a partially ignorant, sometimes even misinformed layman, remember that Wikipedia is for the partially ignorant laymen too. This is not only helping me understand the nuances of the positions better, but also it should result in an article that doens't confuse anyone that went to a Lutheran school or had a Lutheran pastor that used the term "consubstantiation" in a way other than theologians use it. Even the term "local presence" can be confusing. An ignorant Lutheran could think, "the bread is there three dimensionally, and the Body is "in, with, and under" it, so yes, the Body is there three dimensionally." That was how I thought. Of course, the three dimensions is a property that is part and parcel with the nature of bread, and the Lutheran would in no way think that we are eating a three dimenionsional hunk of flesh, a piece of body. Even the term local is confusion in and of itself. I thought that local meant "down on earth with us" rather than "up in heaven with Jesus". The problem is that the Latin cognates were substituted for the Latin terms. This is the same problem withthe new translation of the Book of Concord put out by CPH. I have read some of it, and it uses all these English cognates for complex, specifically defined Latin or German terms, which I largely do not understand to begin with. If I go off the meaning of the cognate, I could end up being wrong.

The original German expression and the modern German expression
For a second time a person changed the first paragraph's spelling of the original German expression. The idea was to have it read like Luther originally wrote it in his Great Confession of 1528. The way I put it in there was not the way it was actually in print, so I corrected it to appear in the same way as it appears in WA 26, 442.23. It would also be helpful to have the expression in the modern day German words and spelling.--Drboisclair (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)