Sacramental Union and the Lutheran Scholastic Tradition

The Formula of Concord, Essence, and Objectivity

I’m not a theologian. I’m a layperson in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, I teach catechism to middle-graders, and as a matter of church order I take the Supper bi-weekly. So why should I be writing about a subject like this?

Well for one, it was an article - or perhaps thee article - that kept us from a united Protestant church in history. And for another, it deals upstream with how you view the Church, the two natures of Christ, etc. And for a last reason - the most trivial of all, and yet the most fundamental - I simply want to write about it. And so, all of this will function as my personal notes. Welcome to my diary.

This won’t be comprehensive, but I hope to do my Lutheran friends justice. So let us start with the Formula of Concord (1577). There are earlier confessional forms that would work, such Dr. Luther’s Large Catechism (1529), but this will represent a developed confessional symbol that accurately describes what then was, and is now, the Lutheran doctrine on the Supper.

It begins with Affirmative Thesis I.I, in Chapter VII on The Lord’s Supper:

We believe, teach, and confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and essentially present, and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine.

The striking part is that the framers chose to use the language of “essence” to signify the mode of presence in the Supper. This marks an entrance of scholasticism into the codification of Lutheran thought, seemingly without departing from Luther himself. To paint the picture more clearly, the Roman doctrine utilized those same categories of substania/accidentia to articulate their doctrine of the Mass, categories which originate from Aristotle’s Metaphyics and Categories (4th century B.C.).

In the Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation, through the Sacramental rite, the substance of bread is transformed into the Body of Christ, but retains the accidents (appearance) of bread. It is sometimes said that there was a move away from Aristotle among the reformers (which is true), but the scholastic method was recovered at times among both the Reformed and Lutheran parties. In this case, the Lutheran formularies claimed that the bread retains its substance, but is simultaneously joined to an additional substance, namely, the Body of Christ. This position has been called by some of it’s interlocuters Consubstantiation (the prefix con- meaning “with,” rendering it “a substance with another”), but this term is often rejected by the Lutheran tradition for reasons we will soon see. The Formula of Concord in Thesis I.II instead calls this a sacramental union between Christ and the elements:

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.

And so, we have both a rejection of the Zwinglian position, and a positive affirmation of a true union of substances. This, in some ways, is analogous to other doctrinal formulations that involve the union of two natures, such as the Chalcedon Definition (451). But, as Dr. John Mueller writes, concerning this unio sacramentalis:

In the Holy Supper a peculiar union (the sacramental union) occurs by virtue of Christ's institution between the bread and the wine, on the one hand, and the body and blood of Christ…this union is neither personal, as is the union of the two natures in Christ, nor mystical (unio mystica), as is that between Christ and the believer, but sacramental, that is to say, the unio sacramentalis takes place only in the Holy Supper (praesentia sacramentalis). It is neither natural nor local, but illocal, supernatural, and incomprehensible, yet real. (From “Christian Dogmatics,” Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, pg. 110)

In the next point, Thesis I.III, we have the positive affirmation of Consecrationism, which makes up a big portion of the Lutheran argument:

Now, as to the consecration, we believe, teach, and confess that no work of man or recitation of the minister [of the church] produces this presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Holy Supper, but that this is to be ascribed only and alone to the almighty power of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This, firstly, is an attempt to bolster the Lutheran position behind the Donatist error, by stating that this Sacramental Union occurs not by the work of the minister (ex opere operantis ministri), nor by the faith of the one recieving the Sacrament (ex opere operantis), but that it occurs purely by the work performed (ex opere operato). And this operato, in our case, is the Word or Promise - which is our next point. Thesis I.IV states:

But at the same time we also believe, teach, and confess unanimously that in the use of the Holy Supper the words of the institution of Christ should in no way be omitted, but should be publicly recited, as it is written 1 Cor. 10:16: The cup of blessing which we bless, etc. This blessing occurs through the recitation of the words of Christ.

Take note of the final sentence: the blessing (Sacramental Union) occurs through the liturgical act, the “recitation of the words of Christ.” And so it is that, when the Word (or Promise of Christ) is spoken, the elements dawn the character of a Sacrament. If the God-Man speaks, His words are true and generative; they actually happen and are not a farse. And so, the presence of Christ’s essence under the elements is not dependent on anything except the Words of Institution, which are effectual through the creational power and promise of the God-Man.

And so, because the Sacrament has an objective character that cannot be undone even by faithlessness, unbelievers also recieve the Body and Blood of Christ - though not to their benefit. As Thesis I.VII states:

We believe, teach, and confess that not only the true believers [in Christ] and the worthy, but also the unworthy and unbelievers, receive the true body and blood of Christ; however, not for life and consolation, but for judgment and condemnation, if they are not converted and do not repent, 1 Cor. 11:27-29.

We also ought to consider the “supernatural” nature of Christ’s presence. It is a real and true presence of the Lord by way of a Sacramental Union, so that it is “in, with, and under” the elements. But it is not a “Capernaitic” reception of His Body and Blood. Thesis I.VI states:

We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ are received with the bread and wine, not only spiritually by faith, but also orally; yet not in a Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, heavenly mode, because of the sacramental union; as the words of Christ clearly show, when Christ gives direction to take, eat, and drink, as was also done by the apostles…

And so, while the presence of Christ is tied to the elements, including their oral consumption, Sacramental Union provides us with the categories to understand that the true Body and Blood of Christ retain their own essence, such that the one who partakes of the Supper receives Christ’s true Body and Blood, but in an elevated and supernatural way. As Mueller writes:

“The Lutherans, on the contrary, regard the sacramental union between the bread and the body and between the wine and the blood as so real and intimate that in the sacramental act the communicant receives Christ's true body and blood in, with, and under the bread and wine (manducatio oralis), the bread and wine indeed in a natural manner (manducatio naturalis), but the body and blood in a supernatural, incomprehensible manner.” (From “Christian Dogmatics,” Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, pg. 527-528)

As a final note - though much more could be said - this is why they reject the term Consubstantiation. This word is used historically is to identify the consubstantial relationship between the Father and Son, which is a relationship of one essence. From the Nicene Creed (325):

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with (consubstantialem) the Father, by whom all things were made.

Because the Lutherans insist on a Sacramental Union of two essences, the reject the accusation that the Body and bread share a united essence of some kind. This is what consubstantiality would imply. As Mueller writes:

…against the misconstructions which the Reformed have put on the Lutheran doctrine of the sacramental union our dogmaticians have said…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… (From “Christian Dogmatics,” Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, pg. 519)

I have not touched on efficacy to this point, or compared it to any other views (such as the Reformed or Anglican positions). But because I am a Presbyterian by confession, that is something I hope to pursue in the soon future.

Thanks for reading. May Christ be with you.