Another Thread About Transubstantiation

[Faith1960]

Faith1960;12927635:

What does sacramentally mean to you?

What does it mean to you?

 

[John_Martin]

John Martin;12927782:

The last part of this seems to depart from Church teaching.
This would indicate the not only are Christ’s body and blood present, but His soul and divinity also.

I have emphatically said that his soul and divinity are also present.
The difference between sacramental presence and concomitant presence are in accord with Church teaching.

Church teaching states that the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of body and blood where they sit next to each other on the altar of the sacrifice of the Mass.
Jesus’ soul is not the same substance as the substance of his body. Jesus’ divinity is not the same substance as the substance of his body. Transubstantiation is the change of the substances of bread and wine into the substances of Body of Christ and Blood of Christ. Jesus did not take bread and say, “This is my soul”.
It follows, therefore, that his soul and divinity are present in the same way of any “whole human”, concomitantly present. His Soul animating, making living food, of his flesh. His Divinity always with his Soul.

I am saying that the sacrament changes the bread and wine into the material body and blood. But it is the spirit that gives life - the soul and divinity must then “reside in” and animate this body for it to be living food and drink.

Simply, though, it is not bread on the altar - it is the body of Jesus Christ to be offered up to the Father as a suitable sacrifice. And it is not wine on the altar - it is the chalice of the blood of Jesus Christ that flowed out of his body in sacrifice. The lamb was slain and the body and blood are on the altar of sacrifice, positioned alongside each other. But Jesus is alive - it is he whose body and blood these are. He is alive, therefore, these, though they look like a slain sacrifice, are alive for you to eat and drink as living food and drink. They are made alive by his soul and divinity present with his body and blood. He is risen.

 

[davidv]

davidv;12927690:

What does it mean to you?

My answer is a paraphrase from the Baltimore Catechism.

That which is an out word sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

 

[davidv]

davidv;12927794:

I have emphatically said that his soul and divinity are also present.
The difference between sacramental presence and concomitant presence are in accord with Church teaching.

Church teaching states that the substance of bread and wine becomes the substance of body and blood where they sit next to each other on the altar of the sacrifice of the Mass.
Jesus’ soul is not the same substance as the substance of his body. Jesus’ divinity is not the same substance as the substance of his body. Transubstantiation is the change of the substances of bread and wine into the substances of Body of Christ and Blood of Christ. Jesus did not take bread and say, “This is my soul”.
It follows, therefore, that his soul and divinity are present in the same way of any “whole human”, concomitantly present. His Soul animating, making living food, of his flesh. His Divinity always with his Soul.

I am saying that the sacrament changes the bread and wine into the material body and blood. But it is the spirit that gives life - the soul and divinity must then “reside in” and animate this body for it to be living food and drink.

Simply, though, it is not bread on the altar - it is the body of Jesus Christ to be offered up to the Father as a suitable sacrifice. And it is not wine on the altar - it is the chalice of the blood of Jesus Christ that flowed out of his body in sacrifice. The lamb was slain and the body and blood are on the altar of sacrifice, positioned alongside each other. But Jesus is alive - it is he whose body and blood these are. He is alive, therefore, these, though they look like a slain sacrifice, are alive for you to eat and drink as living food and drink. They are made alive by his soul and divinity present with his body and blood. He is risen.

I have not seen this distinction in types of presences before. Are they used in Church documents? I have not encountered this in the many that I have read.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I have not seen this distinction in types of presences before. Are they used in Church documents? I have not encountered this in the many that I have read.

It is stated plainly in the dogma of transubstantiation issued by the Council of Trent:

"The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, and is a visible form of an invisible grace. But there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and unique thing, that the other sacraments have the first power of sanctifying when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author Himself of sanctity….

And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the true Body of our Lord, and His true Blood, together with His soul and Divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connection and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who has now risen from the dead to die no more, are united together; and the Divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatic union with His body and soul."

 

[Faith1960]

The substance of a thing is its … “thing-ness.” Not any descriptive thing about it, like size or shape or color or sound or taste or texture (those are all accidents) but the underlying reality of the thing. Normally, you can’t have a thing without having the accidents of that thing, and if you change the substance of a thing (from wood to ashes by fire, for example) the accidents also change (ashes do not look or otherwise respond to the senses like wood).

In transubstantiation, the claim is that the substance of the bread and wine – but not any of their accidents – is changed into the substance of Jesus’ body and blood. So the identity of what’s there is changed, from “bread-ness” and “wine-ness” to “Jesus-ness,” but every property that we can sense or measure remains that of bread or wine.

It’s a strange idea, to be sure, and it’s pretty much the only time we have to worry about a change of substance occurring undetectably. Some people mix up “substance” with scientific concepts like “molecular strufcture” and wonder why we can’t tell that the change has occurred with microscopes and other scientific instruments – but molecular structure still operates on the accidental level. When we say the substance changes, we mean that what this thing IS changes, not anything we can sense or measure.

Now, more recent systems of philosophy tend to deny that a thing has an underlying “thing-ness” that is separate from its actual properties. To some degree, Catholic theology is kind of shackled to older currents of philosophy because we use those terms to define what happens in the Eucharist. But no attempt to reproduce the same idea without using substance/accident terminology has been entirely successful.

Usagi

So could the newer systems of philosophy be right and what does that mean for our definition of substance and accidents?

 

[JonNC]

Well, yeah, but that is also true for transubstantiation.

The question is whether the substance remains. Everybody agrees that the accidents remain, and that Jesus is somehow incorporated. But does the substance remain (and Jesus is somehow attached to it), or is the substance itself transformed, such that ONLY the accidents (and, of course, Jesus) remain?

Catholics believe in transubstantiation, which literally means a transformation of substance. After the Consecration, there is nothing BUT Jesus (who becomes the substance) and the accidents (the physical attributes of bread and wine). The substance of bread and wine no longer remain.

Luther taught consubstantiation. According to Luther, after the Consecration, there are the original substance, the original accidents, and Jesus, who is somehow attached. Neither the substance nor the accidents change in any way, but Jesus is added to them both. This is why his doctrine is called “consubstantiation,” which literally means “the substance plus something else.” Nothing actually changes, but something (Jesus) is added.

If Catholics are correct, Jesus ought to have said “This IS my Body.” Which is what he said.

If Luther was correct, Jesus ought to have said, “HERE is my Body.” Which is NOT what he said.

Hi David,

While I have always enjoyed and appreciated your posts, whatever else you may have read, Lutheran theologians have never described Sacramental Union as consubstantiation, nor have they understood Luther’s ideas regarding the real presence as you have described.

A few examples:

Johann Gerhard (1582 - 1637):
“On account of the calumnies of our adversaries, we would note that we do not believe in impanation, nor in consubstantiation, nor in any physical or local presence.”

“We believe in no consubstantiative presence of the body and blood. Far from us be that figment. The heavenly thing and the Earthly thing in the Lord’s Supper are not present with each other physically and naturally."

Andrew Osiander (1498 - 1552):
“Our theologians for years long have strenuously denied and powerfully confuted the doctrine of a local inclusion, or physical connection of the body and bread, or consubstantiation. We believe in no impanation, subpanation, companation, or consubstantiation of the body of Christ; no physical or local inclusion or conjoining of bread and body, as our adversaries, in manifest calumnies, allege against us.

Sasse (1895 - 1976):
“It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say.”

Charles Porterfield Krauth (1823 - 1883):

Consubstantiation. The charge that the Lutheran Church holds this monstrous doctrine has been repeated times without number. In the face of her solemn protestations the falsehood is still circulated. It would be easy to fill many pages with the declarations of the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and of her great theologians, who, without a dissenting voice, repudiate this doctrine, the name and the thing, in whole and in every one of its parts. In the “Wittenberg Concord,” (1536,) prepared and signed by Luther and the other great leaders in the Church, it is said: “We deny the doctrine of transubstantiation, as we do also deny that the body and blood of Christ are locally included in the bread.” …The manduction is not a thing of the senses or of reason, but supernatural, mysterious, and incomprehensible. The presence of Christ in the supper is not of a physical nature, nor earthly, nor Capernaitish, and yet it is most true.”

As you can see, the understanding of Sacramental Union, and the rejection of consubstantiation, is consistent through the centuries since the Reformation.

Jon

 

[John_Martin]

I have not seen this distinction in types of presences before. Are they used in Church documents? I have not encountered this in the many that I have read.

Thanks, Ron Conte, for the Trent account, which is authoritative, and here, I will let Thomas Aquinas give the theological background himself: From Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 76, first Article on “Whether the whole Christ is contained under this sacrament?”

ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.TP_Q76_A1.html

It is absolutely necessary to confess according to Catholic faith that the entire Christ is in this sacrament. Yet we must know that there is something of Christ in this sacrament in a twofold manner: first, as it were, by the power of the sacrament; secondly, from natural concomitance. By the power of the sacrament, there is under the species of this sacrament that into which the pre-existing substance of the bread and wine is changed, as expressed by the words of the form, which are effective in this as in the other sacraments; for instance, by the words: “This is My body,” or, “This is My blood.” But from natural concomitance there is also in this sacrament that which is really united with that thing wherein the aforesaid conversion is terminated. For if any two things be really united, then wherever the one is really, there must the other also be: since things really united together are only distinguished by an operation of the mind.

Reply to Objection 1: Because the change of the bread and wine is not terminated at the Godhead or the soul of Christ, it follows as a consequence that the Godhead or the soul of Christ is in this sacrament not by the power of the sacrament, but from real concomitance. For since the Godhead never set aside the assumed body, wherever the body of Christ is, there, of necessity, must the Godhead be; and therefore it is necessary for the Godhead to be in this sacrament concomitantly with His body. Hence we read in the profession of faith at Ephesus (P. I., chap. xxvi): “We are made partakers of the body and blood of Christ, not as taking common flesh, nor as of a holy man united to the Word in dignity, but the truly life-giving flesh of the Word Himself.”

On the other hand, His soul was truly separated from His body, as stated above (Q[50], A[5]). And therefore had this sacrament been celebrated during those three days when He was dead, the soul of Christ would not have been there, neither by the power of the sacrament, nor from real concomitance. But since “Christ rising from the dead dieth now no more” (Rom. 6:9), His soul is always really united with His body. And therefore in this sacrament the body indeed of Christ is present by the power of the sacrament, but His soul from real concomitance.

 

[Faith1960]

Faith1960;12928115:

My answer is a paraphrase from the Baltimore Catechism.

That which is an out word sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.

So would you be saying that Jesus is there sacramentally meaning He’s giving us an outward sign of His presence and grace?

 

[John_Martin]

So would you be saying that Jesus is there sacramentally meaning He’s giving us an outward sign of His presence and grace?

He is giving us his real body and real blood. It is the Sacrament that makes them really here, and therefore they are termed, “sacramentally present”, because it is by the Sacrament that they are here.

If you can imagine the real sight of the White House being a “sign of the presence of the White House”, then the Body and Blood of Jesus in front of you on the altar are a sign of his presence and grace, yes. And sacramental, yes, because it in the Sacrament that his Body and Blood became present on the altar.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The distinction between accidents and substance is not a mere philosophical construct. It is a way to describe a truth about created things. Accidents are any and all qualities of a thing that can be changed without changing the nature of the thing; accidents are non-essential to the nature of a thing. Substance is everything essential to the nature of a thing. If you change the substance of a thing, you have changed it into a different type of thing.

Molecules have substance and accidents. If we consider that bread is composed only of molecules (matter), then in transubstantiation, the substance of the molecules changes but the accidents of the molecules do not change.