Consubstantiation

[Servus Christi]

Although I’m not fully convinced, there seem to be some compelling arguments for the real presence in the Lords supper, how important of a doctrine is this? and which other doctrines does it affect? Also what clear scriptures can be used to deny real presence?

 

[Taylor]

I think it is safe to say that the Reformed do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. The issue is not whether he is really present, but how he is really present. To put it more confessionally, how do we understand "sacramental union"? Geerhardus Vos explains very helpfully:

In what sense can one now say that Christ’s body and blood are present in the Lord’s Supper?​

​

This then concerns the question of sacramental union (unio sacramentalis). We have now seen what the sign is; we have also seen what the thing signified is. The sign is bread and wine; the thing signified is Christ the Mediator in the unity of His death and His life. But what is the relationship between these two, sign and thing signified?​

​

a) It is not a material union, or, expressed more precisely, a change, as if the bread and wine ceased being bread and wine and flesh and blood replaced them (against Rome).​

​

b) It is not a local union, as if the body and blood of Christ were joined in space through local proximity or contact with the signs. We may not say: In this location where you see the signs, you must also consider the substance of flesh and blood present (against the Lutherans).​

​

c) It is not a notional union that only exists in the minds of believers. With a symbol I always associate the thing signified with my conception; I represent it to myself. But that is a thing thought, something figurative. In the Lord’s Supper that is the starting point in our conscious faith, but sacramental union does not terminate in that (against Zwingli).​

​

d) It is a union by relationship (σχετικῶς). The thing signified is associated with the sign for the believing participant. It does not come through the sign itself. The sign serves only to bring its meaning and certainty to our consciousness. Only at this point, and only to that extent, is the sign an instrument for the thing signified, expressed more precisely, for an awareness of the thing signified.​

​

e) Not the existence of the thing signified, but certainly its spiritual efficacy on the soul of the communicant is tied to faith. One must pay attention to this point, and in this regard make a precise distinction. There is a fellowship with the living Mediator as He exists in a glorious human nature for the believing participant. But what if the participant does not believe? The thing signified does not thereby cease to exist. Christ remains the same Christ. However, He is only active by His Spirit in the heart of the believer to bestow fellowship with Himself. Now everything depends on what one understands by the presence of Christ. If this means that the signs, as commissioned by Christ, are offered by Christ, and that the Holy Spirit, as God omnipresent, is present, ready to apply the thing signified, then Christ is also present in the Lord’s Supper for the unbelieving participant. If, on the other hand, it means that by the Holy Spirit fellowship with the living Savior is established, then Christ is not present for the unbelieving participant. The word “presence” has more than one meaning. It can mean that something makes itself felt and causes its action to be experienced. It can also mean that something is present.​

​

Faith is required in order to enjoy the blessing of the Lord’s Supper, in order, in the sense just described, to receive the body and blood of Christ present (as active power). Still, one may not say that faith makes Christ present. Faith is the conditio sine qua non [necessary condition], but it does not perform a miracle; it does not draw the human nature of Christ down from heaven.​

​

—Geerhardus Vos, Ecclesiology, ed. Kim Batteau and Allan Janssen, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, vol. 5, Reformed Dogmatics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 237-239; italics original.​

 

[RamistThomist]

Real presence isn’t the same thing as corporeal presence

 

[C4MERON]

Sadly the main thing that Luther & Zwingli could not get together on. Luther, as he believed in presence in the very corporeal sense, got somewhat mad as he emphasised ‘this is my body’ when quoting Christ.
In fact went so far as to say Zwingli was of another spirit.

 

[AT]

Christology to a large extent affects our view of the Lord's supper. Vermigli wrote his work on the two natures of Christ at a time when there were fierce debates over the Lord's supper with the Lutherans.

 

[chuckd]

Real presence isn’t the same thing as corporeal presence

Yes. The Westminster Confession calls it a “real” presence.

 

[JH]

I think it is safe to say that the Reformed do believe in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper. The issue is not whether he is really present, but how he is really present. To put it more confessionally, how do we understand "sacramental union"? Geerhardus Vos explains very helpfully:

In what sense can one now say that Christ’s body and blood are present in the Lord’s Supper?​

​

This then concerns the question of sacramental union (unio sacramentalis). We have now seen what the sign is; we have also seen what the thing signified is. The sign is bread and wine; the thing signified is Christ the Mediator in the unity of His death and His life. But what is the relationship between these two, sign and thing signified?​

​

a) It is not a material union, or, expressed more precisely, a change, as if the bread and wine ceased being bread and wine and flesh and blood replaced them (against Rome).​

​

b) It is not a local union, as if the body and blood of Christ were joined in space through local proximity or contact with the signs. We may not say: In this location where you see the signs, you must also consider the substance of flesh and blood present (against the Lutherans).​

​

c) It is not a notional union that only exists in the minds of believers. With a symbol I always associate the thing signified with my conception; I represent it to myself. But that is a thing thought, something figurative. In the Lord’s Supper that is the starting point in our conscious faith, but sacramental union does not terminate in that (against Zwingli).​

​

d) It is a union by relationship (σχετικῶς). The thing signified is associated with the sign for the believing participant. It does not come through the sign itself. The sign serves only to bring its meaning and certainty to our consciousness. Only at this point, and only to that extent, is the sign an instrument for the thing signified, expressed more precisely, for an awareness of the thing signified.​

​

e) Not the existence of the thing signified, but certainly its spiritual efficacy on the soul of the communicant is tied to faith. One must pay attention to this point, and in this regard make a precise distinction. There is a fellowship with the living Mediator as He exists in a glorious human nature for the believing participant. But what if the participant does not believe? The thing signified does not thereby cease to exist. Christ remains the same Christ. However, He is only active by His Spirit in the heart of the believer to bestow fellowship with Himself. Now everything depends on what one understands by the presence of Christ. If this means that the signs, as commissioned by Christ, are offered by Christ, and that the Holy Spirit, as God omnipresent, is present, ready to apply the thing signified, then Christ is also present in the Lord’s Supper for the unbelieving participant. If, on the other hand, it means that by the Holy Spirit fellowship with the living Savior is established, then Christ is not present for the unbelieving participant. The word “presence” has more than one meaning. It can mean that something makes itself felt and causes its action to be experienced. It can also mean that something is present.​

​

Faith is required in order to enjoy the blessing of the Lord’s Supper, in order, in the sense just described, to receive the body and blood of Christ present (as active power). Still, one may not say that faith makes Christ present. Faith is the conditio sine qua non [necessary condition], but it does not perform a miracle; it does not draw the human nature of Christ down from heaven.​

​

—Geerhardus Vos, Ecclesiology, ed. Kim Batteau and Allan Janssen, trans. Richard B. Gaffin, vol. 5, Reformed Dogmatics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 237-239; italics original.​

Thanks for sharing. This is good to reflect on prior to our Communion Season.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Sadly the main thing that Luther & Zwingli could not get together on. Luther, as he believed in presence in the very corporeal sense, got somewhat mad as he emphasised ‘this is my body’ when quoting Christ.
In fact went so far as to say Zwingli was of another spirit.

"I would rather have pure blood with the Pope, than drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts." -Luther's Works, 37, 317. Some translations have "fanatics" instead of "Enthusiasts."

I do not take the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper, obviously, but I am very much adverse to the Zwinglian view of the Supper.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

It is worth noting that the view commonly known as "Zwinglian" is anything but. Zwingli's statements on the Eucharist in his Confession to the HRE (1529) and in his Exposition of the Christian Faith (posthumous, 1536) show that he lines up well with other Reformed statements on the nature of the Eucharist, such as those of Calvin, the Consensus Tigurinus, and the Reformed Confessions. Zwingli says,
"We assert that the body of Christ is not so carnally and crassly chewed upon in the Supper as they claim; but we believe that the true body of Christ is eaten sacramentally and spiritually, by a religious, faithful, and holy mind, as Chrysostom also judged."
[Adserimus non sic carnaliter & crasse manducari corpus Christi in coena ut isti perhibent, sed verum Christi corpus credimus in coena sacramentaliter & spiritualiter edi, a religiosa, fideli, et sancta mente, quomodo & Chrysostomus sentit.]
Expositio fidei Christianae, p. 37.2
This phrasing could certainly be characterized as "real presence."

 

[ZackF]

It is worth noting that the view commonly known as "Zwinglian" is anything but. Zwingli's statements on the Eucharist in his Confession to the HRE (1529) and in his Exposition of the Christian Faith (posthumous, 1536) show that he lines up well with other Reformed statements on the nature of the Eucharist, such as those of Calvin, the Consensus Tigurinus, and the Reformed Confessions. Zwingli says,
"We assert that the body of Christ is not so carnally and crassly chewed upon in the Supper as they claim; but we believe that the true body of Christ is eaten sacramentally and spiritually, by a religious, faithful, and holy mind, as Chrysostom also judged."
[Adserimus non sic carnaliter & crasse manducari corpus Christi in coena ut isti perhibent, sed verum Christi corpus credimus in coena sacramentaliter & spiritualiter edi, a religiosa, fideli, et sancta mente, quomodo & Chrysostomus sentit.]
Expositio fidei Christianae, p. 37.2
This phrasing could certainly be characterized as "real presence."

This new for me. I had always read of Zwingli’s views as “memorialist”.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

This new for me. I had always read of Zwingli’s views as “memorialist”.

It is true that Zwingli often spoke of the Eucharist as a memorial of Christ, pointing to Christ's words "do this in memory of me," but he did not teach that it was a memorial to the exclusion of being a means of grace, having sacramental properties, or Christ being truly partaken of in it, which is what we usually think of with "memorialism."

 

[chuckd]

This new for me. I had always read of Zwingli’s views as “memorialist”.

Most Lutherans would object to their view being labeled as "consubstantiation."

 

[ZackF]

Most Lutherans would object to their view being labeled as "consubstantiation."

Most Eucharistic thought rejects the characterization of other schools.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

Most Lutherans would object to their view being labeled as "consubstantiation."

That is what I have gathered. I started reading High Orthodoxy Lutheran theological works at the start of the year. It hasn't come up in my readings. Jordan Cooper, whom I watch regularly, indicates the same.

 

[chuckd]

Zwingli says,
"We assert that the body of Christ is not so carnally and crassly chewed upon in the Supper as they claim; but we believe that the true body of Christ is eaten sacramentally and spiritually, by a religious, faithful, and holy mind, as Chrysostom also judged."

Where does Chrysostom say this?

 

[yeutter]

Confessional Lutherans believe that Christ’s true body, that is to say the same body that was incarnate in the Virgin Mary, crucified on the cross, touched by the apostles, and ascended into heaven, is essentially [truly and substantially] present here on earth in the Supper, although not visible to earthly eyes, and present in a way beyond our understanding. Christ's true body is received orally with the bread by the godly and the wicked alike, because the Sacrament is not founded on people’s holiness, but upon God’s Word. Likewise Christ’s true blood is received with the wine. Thus, the Holy Supper works consolation and life in the believing, and condemnation in the unbelieving.

 

[yeutter]

Most Eucharistic thought rejects the characterization of other schools.

Most Lutherans would object to their view being labeled as "consubstantiation."

Confessional Lutherans object to the term consubstantiation. They say the original definition of consubstantiation was that bread and body form 1 substance (a “3d substance”) in Communion (similarly wine and blood) or that body and blood are present, like bread and wine, in a natural manner.

Dr. Francis Pieper, in Christian Dogmatics, the three-volume standard used by nearly every Confessional Lutheran seminary in North America states:

The same principle of a solely local and visible mode of presence results in a polemic against the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper on the part of the Reformed which is untruthful through and through. Because the Reformed, the moment they hear of a true presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament, always visualize only their visible and local presence, “as the peasant fills out jacket and breeches,” they ascribe to us Lutherans a local inclusion (localis inclusion, Hodge, Syst. Theol., I, 83) of the body of Christ in the bread, or a local consubstantiation (consubstantiatio), or even a physical compounding (permixtio) of bread and body of Christ. Because of the same bias they apply to us Lutherans the titles “carnivorous beasts,” “blood guzzlers,” and “cannibals,” and call the Supper instituted by Christ, with the real presence of the body and blood of Christ which is given and shed for us, a “Cyclopean meal” and a “Thyestean banquet.” All this is the result of their adoption of the thesis that Christ’s body can have only a visible and local mode of presence as their principle of Scripture interpretation.