I
Incomplete
Guest
I found that same statement also at a the website of a Lutheran church. luther95.net/FLC-HKY/believe.htm#commune
I’m not sure how that differs from consubstantiation.
- Status
I’m not sure how that differs from consubstantiation.
H
hn160
Guest
The Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church ( WELS ) believes in receptionism, that is the Body and Blood of Christ are only there at the moment of taking the bread and wine. Sad to say, there are some that don’t take the handling of the elements seriously, but at our church everything is handled with respect.
G
GKC
Guest
And I was simply reporting my own experience, constrained as stated.I was simply quoting the OCE.
Gosh, no one wants to admit believing in consubstantiation :nope:, but this wrong-understanding of the Eucharist didn’t invent itself!
So, Anglicans might be denying a belief in consubstantiation, while secretly affirming it?
To any particular end?
GKC
M
mlz
Guest
I
ibo
Guest
Off topic provocation:
Young
Traditional Catholics ???Young and Traditional? Our Church as it is now, it does not fulfill you? Pius IX? Why not Pius III? Or Alexander VI?
Cheers
N
Newsy
Guest
I am a former Presbyterian, PCUSA, they teach communion to be symbolic. My wife is a former Lutheran, ECLA, she was taught that the elements become the Body and Blood of the Lord, but they didn’t use the term transubstantiation.
As to my knowledge, the Presbyterian belief is hard to pin down. They spend more time explaining what communion isn’t, rather than what it is.
Example, “it is not the body and blood.”
“Ok, what is it?”
“Its hard to explain, but it does not change. It’s the Lord’s supper.”
“Uh, ok:shrug:”
This was the conversation when I asked what communion is.
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Lutherans teach sacramental union. It’s where the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ - not by a change of substance, but by some sort of mystery. While the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ, the bread and wine remain bread and wine. Kind of confusing, right? To top it all off, Lutherans say “in, with, and under the bread and wine”. This does not describe how they believe Christ is present, but it describes how they don’t believe Christ is present. It’s supposed to refute transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and symbolic views (I think).
Consubstantiation is a Lollardy heresy - a heresy of the John Wycliffe followers. It predates the reformation by about 150 years. The thought of consubstantiation is a few hundred years older than Lollardy though. I’m also pretty sure that Lollardy introduced the idea of an “invisible” church.
Consubstantiation is a Lollardy heresy - a heresy of the John Wycliffe followers. It predates the reformation by about 150 years. The thought of consubstantiation is a few hundred years older than Lollardy though. I’m also pretty sure that Lollardy introduced the idea of an “invisible” church.
P
pablope
Guest
This is hard to comprehend…and hopefully, some of our Lutheran brothers can clear this up…doesn’t “in, with and under” mean that the elements of bread and wine remain alongside the body and blood, and it is not a complete transformation…though it is a mystery how it happens and contrasted with the transub where a complete transub occurs?
So, if elements of the bread and wine stay with the body and blood, this is consub, isn’t it?
I
Incomplete
Guest
What is the difference between sacramental union and consubstantiation?
T
TimothyH
Guest
The implication here is that Catholics have in some way removed or diminished the mystery by giving it a name or attempting to explain it in the face of heresy. That is false.
Christ himself explained it. “This is my body.” The substance is changed. How it happens is a mystery. How God could allow humans to do this is a mystery. Catholics have not diminished or removed the mystery any more so than Christ himself has in stating “This is my body”.
The term transubstantiation was needed to fight heretics, including those who taught cosubstantiation. The fact is that transubstantiation has a basis in scripture. Wisdom 16 and Wisdom 19 speak of elments changing places. Probably not relevant to a Lutheran but for Catholics, it’s right there.
-Tim-
S
Stalwart
Guest
The ‘high church’ Anglicans accepting consubstantiation are the Anglo-Catholics; hence why Pusey was one of the names mentioned. Traditionally and historically, Anglicans have not espoused consubstantiation.
A
ajpirc
Guest
P
PJM
Guest
THANK YOU FATHER John A. Hardon S.J.
WRONG
CONSUBSTANTIATION. The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation.
WRONG:shrug:
TRANSIGNIFICATION. The view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist which holds that the meaning or significance of the bread and wine is changed by the words of consecration. The consecrated elements are said to signify all that Christians associate with the Last Supper; they have a higher value than merely food for the body. The theory of transignification was condemned by Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei (1965), if it is understood as denying transubstantiation. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + signicatio, meaning, sense: transignificatio.) See also TRANSFINALIZATION
WRONG
TRANSFINALIZATION. The view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist that the purpose or finality of the bread and wine is changed by the words of consecration. They are said to serve a new function, as sacred elements that arouse the faith of the people in the mystery of Christ’s redemptive love. Like transignification, this theory was condemned by Pope Paul VI in the encyclical Mysterium Fidei (1965) if transfinalization is taken to deny the substantial change of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change +finis, end; purpose.)
RIGHT:thumbsup:
TRANSUBSTANTIATION. The complete change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood by a validly ordained priest during the consecration at Mass, so that only the accidents of bread and wine remain. While the faith behind the term was already believed in apostolic times, the term itself was a later development. With the Eastern Fathers before the sixth century, the favored expression was meta-ousiosis “change of being”; the Latin tradition coined the word transubstantiatio, “change of substance,” which was incorporated into the creed of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. The Council of Trent, in defining the “wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and the whole substance of the wine into the blood” of Christ, added “which conversion the Catholic Church calls transubstantiation” (Denzinger 1652). After transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine do not inhere in any subject or substance whatever. Yet they are not make-believe; they are sustained in existence by divine power. (Etym. Latin trans-, so as to change + substantia, substance: transubstantiatio, change of substance.)
God Bless you,
Pat
The problem with consubstantiation is that it relies on the same metaphysical language and contructs as Transubstantiation. In your own words here - “elements of bread and wine remain alongside the body and blood, and it is not a complete transformation…”.
Both Tranusb and consub speak about the substances of bread and wine - are they there or not? Have they somehow physically changed, or not? For a Lutheran, it is irrelevent. Christ said, “this [bread] is my body”. And so that bread is His body. Therefore, here is what we know from Christ’s own words - it is His body. How this happens is a mystery. And, in the end, this is all we are interested in - His body and His blood. God does with the bread and wine as He wills. We can get mere bread and wine anythime, most anywhere. What we receive at the table of the Lord is His true body and blood.
Sacramental Union - in with and under - attempts to describe this, with the understanding of the fact that, once consecrated, it is His body and blood, and knowing what Paul tells us, “16The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.”. Paul continues to talk about bread and cup as being His body and blood, and therefore so do we.
When it comes down to it, however, I think Melanchthon’s description of the Eucharist in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession best describes the Lutheran understanding:
Jon
This may be off-topic, since the thread is about Consubstantiation vs. Transubstantiation, but as a followup, the following Lutheran-Catholic dialogue seems to put our differences and convergences into a perspective of current thought.
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html
Of note regarding Transub. and SU:
prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html
Of note regarding Transub. and SU:
Jon
A
AlwaysCurious
Guest
Jon,
In the Lutheran view, what is required for the Eucharist to be confected? Do you need an ordained priest, and how is Lutheran ordination related to apostolic succession (or is that irrelevant to y’all)?
Oh, and if the NC in your name stands for the state, it’s nice to see a fellow Tarheel here
Thanks,
AC
In the Lutheran view, what is required for the Eucharist to be confected? Do you need an ordained priest, and how is Lutheran ordination related to apostolic succession (or is that irrelevant to y’all)?
Oh, and if the NC in your name stands for the state, it’s nice to see a fellow Tarheel here
Thanks,
AC
The confessions speak to both issues, AC.
From the Augsburg Confession:
Article XIV: Of Ecclesiastical Order.
Of Ecclesiastical Order they teach that no one should publicly teach in the Church or administer the Sacraments unless he be regularly called.
and, regarding A.S.:
bookofconcord.org/defense_13_ecclesiasticalorder.php#article14
The desire to maintain AS is there, but we do not see it as a requitement for a valid priesthood or sacraments, and instead rely on the historic practice of presbyter ordination. Some Lutherans in Scandinavia maintained succession (though not recognized by Rome) from Reformation times, and some Lutherans, through Anglican/Episcopal lines, have returned to it in recent times.
Yes, west of Asheville - in the mountains where it is (relatively) cooler.Oh, and if the NC in your name stands for the state, it’s nice to see a fellow Tarheel here
A poster sometime back asked if NC meant non-Catholic.
That reference didn’t cross my mind when I picked the handle. Jon
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Consubstantiation was created by the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church believes in both consubstantiation and transubstantiation as was just explained here.
Consubstantiation will be learned by the faithful in English speaking countries come this Advent in the Nicene Creed…it means that Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father to answer the heresy and subsequent confusion brought on by Arius, that Jesus Christ had a beginning and an end.
Consubstantiation in essence means that Jesus Christ is God, and is of the same substance of God, “I Am Who Am”.
The Catholic Church believes in both consubstantiation and transubstantiation as was just explained here.
Consubstantiation will be learned by the faithful in English speaking countries come this Advent in the Nicene Creed…it means that Jesus Christ is of the same substance as the Father to answer the heresy and subsequent confusion brought on by Arius, that Jesus Christ had a beginning and an end.
Consubstantiation in essence means that Jesus Christ is God, and is of the same substance of God, “I Am Who Am”.
G
GKC
Guest
- Status