Are Catholics the only transubstantiationists?

[epower]

Are Catholics the only religion that believes in transubstantiation?

When I was in high school, my rector taught us that the Episcopalians were the only other Protestants that believed in transubstantiation. On another board, I was informed that Episcopalians believe in consubstantiation. When did this change, or was it always that way?

 

[RomanRiteTeen]

It really varies with Anglican/Episcopalians, as there is no set doctrine on the matter (or many others, for that matter). The more traditional Anglicans, and Anglo-Catholics, do believe in transubstantiation.

 

[theMutant]

The Orthodox churches also believe in transubstantiation. I don’t know exactly when the change occurred from transubstantiation to consubstantiation for those religions that believe it.

 

[Coptic]

The Orthodox Churches–or at least mine–does not use the term transubstantiation, but we basically believe the same thing.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

 

[Psalm89]

“The Lutherans 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 scramental act the communicant receives Christ’s true body and blood in, with and under the bread and since, the bread and wine indeed in a natural manner, but the body and blood in a supernatural, incomprehensible manner.”

Lutherans reject consubstatiation.

Formula of Concord: “For this command ‘Eat and drink’] cannot be understood otherwise than eating and drinking however, not in a gross carnal, Capernaitic, but in a supernatural, incomprehensible way.”

Lutherans also believe that the Lords Supper is a means of grace.

There are three views:

a. In the Holy Supper there in only the body and blood of Lord Jesus Christ, that is to say, in the Eucharist the bread and wine are changed (transubstantiated) into the body and blood of our Lord. (Roman Catholic)

b. In the Holy Supper the bread and wine are only symbols or bare signs. (Calvinists and most protestants.)

c. In the Holy Supper a peculiar union (the scramental union) occurs (Lutherans believe.)

 

[theMutant]

Coptic:

The Orthodox Churches–or at least mine–does not use the term transubstantiation, but we basically believe the same thing

That doesn’t surprise me since the term is Latin. I was, of course, referring to the belief and not the term.

 

[theMutant]

“The Lutherans 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 scramental act the communicant receives Christ’s true body and blood in, with and under the bread and since, the bread and wine indeed in a natural manner, but the body and blood in a supernatural, incomprehensible manner.”

Lutherans reject consubstatiation.

Hi Psalm89,

Maybe I’m confused but I always understood that this is what consubstantiation is. The substance of the bread and wine exists with (con) the the substance of the true and real presence of the body and blood of Christ. This is differentiated from tran which indicates going from one to the other. In transubstantiation, the belief is that no substative part of the bread and wine remains; only the outward (percievable) appearances.

 

[Psalm89]

theMutant:

Hi Psalm89,

Maybe I’m confused but I always understood that this is what consubstantiation is. The substance of the bread and wine exists with (con) the the substance of the true and real presence of the body and blood of Christ. This is differentiated from tran which indicates going from one to the other. In transubstantiation, the belief is that no substative part of the bread and wine remains; only the outward (percievable) appearances.

We believe it is a sacramental union, not consubstantiated, or commixture of the two substances, but in both the bread and the wine substance of the body and blood of Christ remains unmixed. Consubstantiation is like Christ’s body and blood are mixed up together with the bread and wine and you can’t find the two anymore but find a new substance made up of the two.

We believe two remain seperate, but are together in a mystical, sacramental union.

I can try to explain it further if this is still confusing. Hope this helps.

 

[theMutant]

Psalm89:

We believe it is a sacramental union, not consubstantiated, or commixture of the two substances, but in both the bread and the wine substance of the body and blood of Christ remains unmixed. Consubstantiation is like Christ’s body and blood are mixed up together with the bread and wine and you can’t find the two anymore but find a new substance made up of the two.

We believe two remain seperate, but are together in a mystical, sacramental union.

I can try to explain it further if this is still confusing. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the clarification. I had simply never heard of consubstantiation meaning that Chist’s body and blood are “mixed up together” with the bread and wine before your explanation.

 

[mkw]

Then would it make better sense to say COsubstantiation instead of CONsubstantiation in regards to what the Lutherns believe?

 

[Psalm89]

mkw:

Then would it make better sense to say COsubstantiation instead of CONsubstantiation in regards to what the Lutherns believe?

Yes it is commonly called cosubstantiation.

I think another way to put it is Catholics and Lutherans believe the bread and body, blood and wine are both there. The Catholics say we know “how” it is there -transubstatiation. Lutherans say we don’t know “how” they are just there together - cosubstantiation.

Lutherans do this quiet a bit with their theology. Were there seems to be a mystery, (like the last supper or predestination) we just leave it at that, don’t speculate much and go on faith.

More on the Last Supper from Lutherans:

1. THE LORD’S SUPPER OFFERS AND CONVEYS FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

By these words forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given to us in the sacrament, for where there is forgiveness of sins, there are also life and salvation (SC VI, 6).
The people are also admonished concerning the value and use of the sacrament and the great consolation it offers to anxious consciences, that they may learn to believe in God and ask for and expect whatever is good from God (AC XXIV, 7).

1. THE LORD’S SUPPER OFFERS THE TRULY PRESENT BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.

It is taught among us that the true body and blood of Christ are really present in the Supper of our Lord under the form of bread and wine and are there distributed and received. The contrary doctrine is therefore rejected (AC X).

1. THE LORD’S SUPPER STRENGTHENS FAITH.

Thus the Lord’s Supper was instituted in the church so that as this sign reminds us of the promises of Christ, the remembrance might strengthen our faith and we might publicly confess our faith and announce the blessings of Christ, as Paul says (1 Cor. 11:26), “As often as you do this, you proclaim the Lord’s death” (Ap IV, 210).

1. THE LORD’S SUPPER IMPARTS POWER FOR CHRISTIAN LIVING.

For here in the sacrament you receive from Christ’s lips the forgiveness of sins, which contains and conveys God’s grace and Spirit with all his gifts, protection, defense, and power against death and the devil and all evils (LC V, 70).

1. THE LORD’S SUPPER IS AN ACT OF THANKFUL ADORATION.

The principal use of the sacrament is to make clear that terrified
consciences are the ones worthy of it, and how they ought to use it.There is also a sacrifice, since one action can have several purposes.

Once faith has strengthened a conscience to see Its liberation from terror, then it really gives thanks for the blessing of Christ’s suffering. It uses the ceremony Itself as praise to God, as a demonstration of its gratitude, and a witness of its high esteem for God’s gifts. Thus the ceremony becomes a sacrifice of praise (Ap XXIV, 73-74).

1. THE LORD’S SUPPER IS A CELEBRATION OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP.

After the Last Supper, as he was about to begin his bitter passion and death for our sin, in this sad, last hour of his life, this truthful and almighty Lord, our Creator and Redeemer Jesus Christ, selected his words with great deliberation and care in ordaining and instituting this most venerable sacrament, which was to be observed with great reverence and obedience until the end of the world and which was to be an abiding memorial of his bitter passion and death and of all his blessings, a seal of the new covenant, a comfort for all sorrowing hearts, and a true bond and union of Christians with Christ their head and with one another (FC SD VII, 44).

 

[Katholikos]

Psalm 89 wrote: There are three views:

a. In the Holy Supper there in only the body and blood of Lord Jesus Christ, that is to say, in the Eucharist the bread and wine are changed (transubstantiated) into the body and blood of our Lord. (Roman Catholic)

b. In the Holy Supper the bread and wine are only symbols or bare signs. (Calvinists and most protestants.)

c. In the Holy Supper a peculiar union (the scramental union) occurs (Lutherans believe.)

Are you sure there are only three?

For 1500 years, all Christendom (which for a thousand years consisted only of the Catholic Church and for another 500 years, the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) was united in the literal understanding of Our Savior’s words. Then came Luther and between 1517 and 1577, in only 60 years, there were **200 **interpretations. They were documented in Christopher Raspergers book, Two Hundred Interpretations of the Words, “This Is My Body” (published in Germany).

It’s hard to believe there are fewer than that today, when there are thousands more denominations.

Luther denied the Sacrifice of the Mass, but defended the literal interpretation. And he came up with the “in, with, and under” twist, which no Christian had believed for the preceding 16 centuries.

JMJ Jay

 

[Psalm89]

Katholikos:

Are you sure there are only three?

Luther denied the Sacrifice of the Mass, but defended the literal interpretation. And he came up with the “in, with, and under” twist, which no Christian had believed for the preceding 16 centuries.

JMJ Jay

There might be more on paper somewhere, but in practice these are the only ones worth mentioning.

The vast majority of protestants believe in the symbolic interpretation.

I also think that somewhere in 16 centuries that some Christian somewhere even if he didn’t right it down probably believed something other than transubstantiation.

One of the most common refrains I hear on this board is about people being anti-Catholic. Sometimes the charge is true, but poor Luther! That guy is demonized more than satan on this board.

Guess what? If the church hadn’t been so corrupt the reformation wouldn’t have ever happened! Catholics make it sound like there was a church wide utopia and Luther just showed up one day and messed everything up.

I think the term anti-Lutheran is an appropriate one for many people on this board.

 

[Mickey]

Psalm89:

There might be more on paper somewhere, but in practice these are the only ones worth mentioning.

The vast majority of protestants believe in the symbolic interpretation.

I also think that somewhere in 16 centuries that some Christian somewhere even if he didn’t right it down probably believed something other than transubstantiation.

One of the most common refrains I hear on this board is about people being anti-Catholic. Sometimes the charge is true, but poor Luther! That guy is demonized more than satan on this board.

Guess what? If the church hadn’t been so corrupt the reformation wouldn’t have ever happened! Catholics make it sound like there was a church wide utopia and Luther just showed up one day and messed everything up.

I think the term anti-Lutheran is an appropriate one for many people on this board.

The Church was not corrupt. People are corrupt. But I do understand what you are saying. Some Catholics are so used to getting bashed, that they get overly defensive sometimes. I’m going to pray for Martin Luther. God Bless you!

 

[mtr01]

Psalm89:

I think another way to put it is Catholics and Lutherans believe the bread and body, blood and wine are both there. The Catholics say we know “how” it is there -transubstatiation. Lutherans say we don’t know “how” they are just there together - cosubstantiation.

This is actually an imprecise way of defining the Catholic view. Specifically, the Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine are **not **present after the consecration. What is there is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ only. It only appears to be bread and wine, but the bread and wine no longer exist in the host.

This is the main difference between the Catholic and Lutheran view, as you have pointed out, the Lutheran Church believes that the bread and wine still remain in the host.

 

[epower]

Thank you for the responses. I was not aware of the Lutheran beliefs.

 

[Psalm89]

mtr01:

This is actually an imprecise way of defining the Catholic view. Specifically, the Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine are **not **present after the consecration. What is there is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ only. It only appears to be bread and wine, but the bread and wine no longer exist in the host.

This is the main difference between the Catholic and Lutheran view, as you have pointed out, the Lutheran Church believes that the bread and wine still remain in the host.

I’m a bit confused then. It appears to be bread and wine still means that if you take the host and put it under a microscope that it would appear to be bread and wine. If you drank enough wine it could make you drunk and the bread has calories like regular bread does. Are these things appearances too?

The actual effect of the bread and wine on the body is different than eating human flesh and drinking blood. (Nutrition-wise I mean.)

 

[mtr01]

Psalm89:

I’m a bit confused then. It appears to be bread and wine still means that if you take the host and put it under a microscope that it would appear to be bread and wine. If you drank enough wine it could make you drunk and the bread has calories like regular bread does. Are these things appearances too?

The actual effect of the bread and wine on the body is different than eating human flesh and drinking blood. (Nutrition-wise I mean.)

Without going too deeply into Scholasticism, I’ll try to provide a basic explanation. When you look at an object, there are two aspects present, the substance and the accidents. The accidents are what are present to our senses, color, texture, taste, etc. The substance is what makes the object what it is, and is seperate from the accidents.

A crude anology I use is bread. There are many different kinds of bread: rye, french, whole wheat, hawaiian, raisin, wonder, etc. For each of these the accidents are different: they look different, they taste different, they feel different. However, they all have the same substance, that which makes them bread.

Now what transubstantiation means is that when the host is consecrated, the substance (that which makes it bread) is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ; from one substance to another. What doesn’t change is the accidents. The host still looks, feels and tastes like bread, but the substance is now Christ. This is what we mean when we say Jesus is present under the appearance on bread and wine. It’s really Jesus, but it appears to be bread (and wine).

 

[Psalm89]

mtr01:

Now what transubstantiation means is that when the host is consecrated, the substance (that which makes it bread) is changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ; from one substance to another. What doesn’t change is the accidents. The host still looks, feels and tastes like bread, but the substance is now Christ. This is what we mean when we say Jesus is present under the appearance on bread and wine. It’s really Jesus, but it appears to be bread (and wine).

Ok, that is much clearer. Thanks.

The difference between Lutherans and Catholics is that the bread still remains for the Lutherans. But from what you said the bread in one sense does still remain at least on some level.

I think Lutherans and Catholics are really close on this. It almost is just semantics. It sounds to to me that the Catholics just reasoned out the process a bit more.

The reason Lutherans don’t is that Lutheran theologians don’t like metaphysics. They feel like we shouldn’t speculate too much because it might detract from God’s word. Someone like Aquinas would reason things like this out to the best of his ability, a Lutheran theologian would accept the mystery without speculation and claim agnosticism about how exactly it works.

 

[mtr01]

Psalm89:

Ok, that is much clearer. Thanks.

The difference between Lutherans and Catholics is that the bread still remains for the Lutherans. But from what you said the bread in one sense does still remain at least on some level.

I think Lutherans and Catholics are really close on this. It almost is just semantics. It sounds to to me that the Catholics just reasoned out the process a bit more.

The reason Lutherans don’t is that Lutheran theologians don’t like metaphysics. They feel like we shouldn’t speculate too much because it might detract from God’s word. Someone like Aquinas would reason things like this out to the best of his ability, a Lutheran theologian would accept the mystery without speculation and claim agnosticism about how exactly it works.
I’ll be honest, I don’t know a whole lot about Lutheran theology, but I would suspect that Luther himself would have been quite familiar with transubstantion since he was a Catholic monk, well after Aquinas’ time. I couldn’t really speak to what was his reason for “altering” this belief into cosubstantiation.