Consubstantiation Hymnody


I’m looking for a little help. Do any of you know of a hymn or prayer in Lutheran worship that intentionally teach the doctrine of Consubstantiation?

There shouldn’t be any because we don’t teach consubstantiation.


Lutherans dislike this term, for reasons I’ll let the Lutherans explain!

But if you mean, “are there Lutheran hymns that explicitly assert that the substance of bread and wine is still present,” I don’t think Lutheran hymns would bother with something like that. Lutheran Eucharistic hymns focus on the Real Presence, and the ones I know could surely be sung by Catholics.

“Deck Thyself, My Soul, with Gladness” is perhaps my favorite Eucharistic hymn (well, in there with “Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence”), and one of my favorite hymns period. I’m not sure what if anything a Catholic could object to in that hymn.


Some of my favorite Eucharistic hymns:

I Come, O Savior, to Thy Table

Draw Nigh and Take the Body of the Lord

Soul, Adorn Thyself with Gladness

O Lord, We Praise Thee

As Edwin said, our focus is on body and blood, the real presence.

I took a moment to look through the old Service Book and Hymnal, and the Lutheran Book of Worship, and none of the hymns lend a hint to consubstantiation.


Although not liturgical texts per se, there are a number of quotes from Lutheran sources in this link :wink: referring to the Lutheran understanding of Christ “in, with, and under” the bread and wine.

I know Our Redeemer the LCMS Church nearby says “in with and under” during the distribution of Holy Communion. I have visited there as my good friend (now retired)
was Pastor.


And none of them speak to consubstantiation, but to sacramental union.

From your Catholic link:

Should Lutherans be opposed to the term consubstantiation?

So why are Lutherans often averse to the term consubstantiation to describe what they believe about the Eucharist. Due to the frequent comparison to transubstantiation in Lutheran definitions of the Eucharist, it is possible that the term consubstantiation is too close a resemblance to transubstantiation which they oppose.

Actually, the Lutheran understanding of the real presence is far closer to that of the Catholic Church than consubstantiation. We just don’t explain it using the Aristotelian, metaphysical construct of Transubstantiation.

Here is a Lutheran link:


It seems that the issue here is just a matter of terminology. You are insisting on a certain definition of consubstantiation and claiming that your church does not believe in consubstantiation by that definition. But the rest of us are using a different definition. I’ve always understood consubstantiation to mean that, after the consecration, both the bread and the body are present, rather than just the bread (as most Protestants believe) or just the body (as Catholics believe), and based on your link this is exactly what the Lutheran church teaches.

Thank you everyone. I’ll take a look. I also found a hymn by a clergyman from the Church of Scotland that seems to have the parts that I’m trying to find. The influence of the doctrine is evident in the hymn.

Horatius Bonar, “This is the hour of banquet and song”

Exactly. Lesson number one in conversing with someone is to talk past the terms and get to the concepts expressed by those terms. The argument “Lutherans believe in consubstantiation” vs. “no we don’t” is fruitless. The real question is do Lutherans believe bread is still present with the Body of the Lord. They do. End of argument.

Mind if I ask why you are interested?

Can anyone explain “in with and under”?

In the Solid Declaration of the Book of Concord of the Lutheran Confessions, this is stated of the Sacramental Union:
35 In addition to Christ’s and St. Paul’s expressions (the bread in the Supper is the body of Christ or the communion of the body of Christ), the following forms are also used: under the bread, with the bread, in the bread. With these words the papistic transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the bread’s unchanged essence and Christ’s body may be shown. 36 In the same way, the expression “the Word became flesh” [John 1:14] is repeated and explained by the equivalent expressions “the Word … dwelt among us” [John 1:14]; likewise, “in Him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” [Colossians 2:9]; likewise, “God was with Him” [Acts 10:38]; likewise, “in Christ God was” [2 Corinthians 5:19], and the like. These show that the divine essence is not changed into the human nature. But the two natures, unchanged, are personally united. 37 Many eminent ancient teachers, such as Justin, Cyprian, Augustine, Leo, Gelasius, Chrysostom, and others, use this comparison about the words of Christ’s testament, “This is My body.” Just as in Christ two distinct, unchanged natures are inseparably united, so in the Holy Supper the two substances—the natural bread and Christ’s true natural body—are present together here on earth in the appointed administration of the Sacrament. 38 This union of Christ’s body and blood with the bread and wine is not a personal union (as that of the two natures in Christ). But Dr. Luther and our theologians, in the frequently mentioned Articles of Agreement ‹Formula Concordiae› in the year 1536 and in other places, call it a sacramental union. By this they wish to show that, although they use these distinct modes of speech: in the bread, under the bread, with the bread, yet they have received Christ’s words properly. They read, and have understood the proposition that the words of Christ’s testament (“This is My body”) are not a figurative, allegorical expression or comment, but are a unique expression. 39 Justin says:
This we receive not as common bread and common drink. We receive them as Jesus Christ, our Savior, who through the Word of God became flesh. For the sake of our salvation He also had flesh and blood. So we believe that the food blessed by Him through the Word and prayer is the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Crowdsourcing research. I was writing a paper on liturgical practice that articulates the doctrine. But, even with a lot of resources at my fingertips I was having a difficult time finding sources.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit