I’ve heard before that the term “consubstantiation” doesn’t really describe Luther’s theology of the Eucharist. I’m not surprised. It’s much easier to latch onto a quick description of someone’s views, rather than representing them faithfully. Frank Senn, a reputable liturgical scholar and a Lutheran himself, provides some background and clarification:
“We have seen that the medieval church explained the real presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar in terms of transubstantiation. Luther was slow in giving up this doctrine. He related his surprise, in Babylonian Captivity, at discovering the opinion of Peter d’Ailly of Paris that it would require fewer miracles to explain the real presence in terms of consubstantiation, since the bread and the wine would then remain on the altar with the body and blood of Christ after the consecration. From this Luther concluded that ‘the opinion of Thomas’ on transubstantiation should have remained an opinion, and should not have been made an article of faith. But it cannot be concluded from this that Luther held to the theory of consubstantiation. Neither here nor in any other passage does Luther use this term to describe his own views, and it was never accepted as a doctrine in the Lutheran Confessions–although the Formula of Concord does speak of the sacramental union of ‘the two essences [Latin: substantiae; German: zwei Wesen], the natural bread and the true, natural body of Christ’ being ‘present together here on earth in the ordered action of the sacrament” (Christian Liturgy: Catholic and Evangelical, 307).
A few pages later, Senn concludes: ”The Lutheran position on the real presence, as developed in the course of the controversy with the Swiss reformers, ultimately depends on no philosophic explanation, neither consubstantiation nor even a doctrine of ubiquity. None of these can serve the Lutheran position. Rather, the Lutheran position depends on the mystery of the word, which is God’s effective self-communication and self-disclosure. What is disclosed in the sacrament is the same reality that is disclosed in the incarnation: a God who meets us deep in the flesh in order to know us as we are, forgive us, share his own life with us, and save us. Only in the preaching of the gospel and in the performance of the sign-acts of the sacraments do we have any assurance by words of promise that God in Christ continues to come to us in a saving way” (Christian Liturgy, 310).”
Now, I’m not a Lutheran, and perhaps other Lutheran scholars might disagree with Senn’s rejection of “consubstantiation” as an accurate label for Lutheran thinking on the Eucharist. But, I think that Senn’s summary provides an admirable statement, faithful to both Scripture and the church’s tradition.
