Consubstantiation vs. Transubstantiation

[GKC]

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.

A poster sometime back asked if NC meant non-Catholic. That reference didn’t cross my mind when I picked the handle.

Jon

I used to camp around those areas, many years ago. Beautiful.

GKC

 

[Swiss_Guy]

What is the difference between sacramental union and consubstantiation?

Sacramental Union: The bread and wine ARE the Body and Blood of Christ, yet the bread and wine remain. It’s a mystery how that works/happens.

Consubstantiation: Christ’s Body and Blood come alongside the bread and wine. That’s one version. The Lollardy version is that it (the Eucharist) remains bread and wine, but spiritually become Christ’s Body and Blood.

 

[Newsy]

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 new revision addresses the fact that Jesus is consubstantial with the Father. So, yes you are correct. But, the OP is addressing consubstantiation in the Eucharist which is a heresy in the Catholic Church. Similar wording, but different topics.

 

[KathleenGee]

Let me see the new readings for the missalette…

The teachings was that Christ is of the same substance as the Father…I don’t know if I still have the booklet…issue could be spelling…

Sorry…

Kathleen

 

[KathleenGee]

Yes, I do have a brain in my aging process…we will be saying consubstantial at the Nicene Creed…as I said…

I saw the part on the Lutheran use of consubstantial…but chimed in because we are using it…from original Latin text.

We had Deacon Owen Cummings visit our parish and he told us that the Church created this word ‘consubstantial’ in response to Arianism…more about God and Christ of the same substance…

 

[KathleenGee]

Now that English speaking Roman Catholics will be reciting the Nicene Creed in accordance in the manner how the rest of mainline Catholic countries do…i don’t know how it will affect African parishes with their dialects…

I bring forth here part of the Nicene Creed begin Advent, 2011. Will this cause a new discussion on the use of Consubstantiation with Lutherans?

Continued…

"I believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all men, God from God, Light from Light,
True God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father,
through him all things were made,
For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man…’

 

[Incomplete]

While what you post is true, this thread is about transubstantiation vs consubstantiation in the Eucharist. It has a different meaning in that context. “Consubstantial” is different than “consubstantiation.”

 

[KathleenGee]

Understand.

If I recall correctly, we also use the word ‘consubstantial’ with consubstantiation, the reason for my initial confusion.

Sorry for getting topic off.

 

[Incomplete]

I understand your confusion.

 

[KathleenGee]

I probably don’t have time, but want to find out from this priest if we do use consubstantiation as well…I do remember clearly ‘consubstantiate’ in the presentation…curious…

 

[copperblade]

Now that English speaking Roman Catholics will be reciting the Nicene Creed in accordance in the manner how the rest of mainline Catholic countries do…i don’t know how it will affect African parishes with their dialects…

I bring forth here part of the Nicene Creed begin Advent, 2011. Will this cause a new discussion on the use of Consubstantiation with Lutherans?

Continued…

"I believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all men, God from God, Light from Light,
True God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father,
through him all things were made,
For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man…’

This word “consubstatial” doesn’t refer to the Eucharist–it refers to the relationship of the Father and the Son, as BOTH are present in the Godhead.

Catholics believe that bread and wine cease to be bread and wine in the Eucharist, but are literally the Body and Blood from thence forth. So the important question to Lutherans is “do you believe the bread and wine are still there?” If the answer is yes, then they believe something else, and that’s why they’re not permitted to join us in Communion (as the Orthodox are).

All the metaphysical talk in transubstantiation as far as I can tell is just there to help explain how there’s no more bread and wine, but it still tastes and has the outward appearance of bread and wine.

 

[KathleenGee]

Copperblade, consubstantiation…do Catholics actually use that word along with consubstantial…Christ same substance as the Father…?

 

[copperblade]

Copperblade, consubstantiation…do Catholics actually use that word along with consubstantial…Christ same substance as the Father…?

Consubstantiation (verb) would be a joining into one. I would say no because it implies two are made one, rather than being one eternally. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are consubstantial (adjective) eternally.

Q: In the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, why has “one in being with the Father” been changed to “consubstantial with the Father?”

A: The new translation is more in keeping with the ancient Latin text of the Creed and a more accurate translation.

The bishops at the Council of Nicea (AD 325), in order to ensure that Jesus was professed as the eternal Son of God, equal to the Father, stated that he is “the Son of God, begotten from the Father, the only-begotten, that is from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, the same substance (homoousion) with the Father…” The Creed of the Council of Constantinople (381), which is professed at all Sunday Masses and Solemnities within the Catholic Church, similarly stated: “We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousion) with the Father.”

When these two ancient creeds were translated into Latin, the term “homoousion” was rendered as “consubstantialem,” that is, “the same substance of the Father.” Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the Latin “consubstantialem” was rendered as “consubstantial” within the English translation of the Creed. Many theologians and the Holy See thought that the term “consubstantial” was more in keeping with the Latin tradition and a more literal and accurate translation than the more recent “one in being.”

This is in keeping with the mind of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, which published an Instruction, entitled Liturgiam Authenticam. It stated: “Certain expressions that belong to the heritage of the whole or of a great part of the ancient Church, as well as others that have become part of the general human patrimony, are to be respected by a translation that is as literal as possible” (no. 56).

I guess “one in being” could be less exact because it could mean different things metaphoricaly, or leave room for misunderstanding. “One in being” doesn’t imply equality the same way that “consubstantial” does, it seems.

But in the case of the Eucharist, Catholics don’t believe Jesus is “joined to” the bread and wine, or co-exists with bread and wine. Rather it is Jesus wholly and fully, as transformed therefore transubstantiated (changed substance).

 

[JonNC]

This word “consubstatial” doesn’t refer to the Eucharist–it refers to the relationship of the Father and the Son, as BOTH are present in the Godhead.

Catholics believe that bread and wine cease to be bread and wine in the Eucharist, but are literally the Body and Blood from thence forth. **So the important question to Lutherans is “do you believe the bread and wine are still there?” **If the answer is yes, then they believe something else, and that’s why they’re not permitted to join us in Communion (as the Orthodox are).

All the metaphysical talk in transubstantiation as far as I can tell is just there to help explain how there’s no more bread and wine, but it still tastes and has the outward appearance of bread and wine.

And the answer is we don’t know, as Christ does not say. What He says is that the bread IS His body, the wine IS His blood. So, therefore, what we do know is that when we receive the Eucharist, we receive the true body and blood of Christ. Yes, literally the body and blood of Christ. Our senses detect bread and wine, but it is not mere bread and wine.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Copperblade…my Dominican clerical source is very busy right now…he lives in a house with Latinists as well…

I wanted a certain name in Latin for my dog…I got a nice print out with her name in Latin from him; he consulted two others to make sure. I can it hang on the wall with her pedigree if I want.

At the Epiclesis at Mass, the priest calls down the Holy Spirit to change the bread and wine into the soul, divinity, body and blood of Jesus Christ, the Resurrected Christ. I am also reviewing St. Catherine of Siena’s sacramental teaching on the Eucharist as well.

My dog has more pedigree papers on her than I do on myself.

 

[KathleenGee]

Jon, if you don’t mind, let me look up what this doctor of the church was saying…I read it last night…it is just that i want to condense it…but it make sense here…

What do you mean, ‘not sure still there’?

 

[JonNC]

Jon, if you don’t mind, let me look up what this doctor of the church was saying…I read it last night…it is just that i want to condense it…but it make sense here…

What do you mean, ‘not sure still there’?

Well, I said we don’t know. What I mean is that while Catholics express the change that takes place in terms of substance and accidents, Lutherans don’t. We say that, as Christ tells us, the bread IS His body. So for us, statements as to the substance of the elements of bread and wine are unneeded, as we believe God does with them as He wills. What we receive is His body and blood.

It is sometimes hard, I think, for Lutherans and Catholics to converse about the RP because we speak of it using different expressions from different perspectives. We agree that it is the true body and blood of Christ. We agree that it is nolonger mere bread and wine. You say the bread becomes His body. We say the bread is His body. In the end, ISTM, it is a distinction that lacks a difference. And if I were cornered into choosing between Transubstantiation and consubstantiation, I would have to side with Transub, because, excluding the metaphysical references, it implies the same concept as Sacramental Union - what our senses tell us is bread and wine is most certainly His body and blood.

Jon

 

[pablope]

Well, I said we don’t know. What I mean is that while Catholics express the change that takes place in terms of substance and accidents, Lutherans don’t. We agree that it is nolonger mere bread and wine. You say the bread becomes His body. We say the bread is His body. In the end, ISTM, it is a distinction that lacks a difference. And if I were cornered into choosing between Transubstantiation and consubstantiation, I would have to side with Transub, because, excluding the metaphysical references, it implies the same concept as Sacramental Union - what our senses tell us is bread and wine is most certainly His body and blood.

Jon

Hi, Jon…thanks for your previous response and this.

Let me see if I understood right…Lutherans do not really adhere to consub, it is just that you chose not to give the process of transformation (for lack of a better word) a name (transub or consub) and choose to leave at that.

Hope you are doing well, my friend.

Pablope

 

[JonNC]

Hi, Jon…thanks for your previous response and this.

Let me see if I understood right…Lutherans do not really adhere to consub, it is just that you chose not to give the process of transformation (for lack of a better word) a name (transub or consub) and choose to leave at that.

Hope you are doing well, my friend.

Pablope

Hi Pablope,

I am doing quite well, my friend, as I hope you are.

More that we choose not to try to describe what is physically entailed in the process of transformation (for lack of a better term). By the words spoken and the power of the Holy Spirit, mere bread and wine ARE the true and substantial body and blood of Christ, which we receive both spiritually and orally when we eat the supper, for the forgiveness of sins. How this happens is a mystery. So, in that sense, yes, we leave it at that.

Jon

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Jon…

Just to add…I spoke today with our faith formation director, a Ph.D. who studied conjointly with my pastor. She is a former Lutheran, converting at age 11.

I recall the instruction given by the visiting deacon…that ‘Consubstantiate’ is a word – created by the Church in ancient times – to refute Arianism, and declare that Christ is the same with the Father. The word usage of ‘Consubstantiate’ simply does not exist outside the Church. I would also think irregardless of its form – noun, adverb, adjective…

Our director said her off hand observation is that consubstantial derives from consubstantiationm but wants to look this up…found it very interesting because…

… what we both immediately flashed on was the possibility that now that our English will be as closest we can get to the Latin original at this time, we wonder if the use of ‘consubstantial’ will work to bring more unity with the Lutheran Church.

The priest places his hands over the gifts and prays for the Holy Spirit to come down, the Epiclesis…so that the gifts do become the Body, Blood of Jesus Christ.

In some ways…it is an issue like the Orthodox and Catholic with the Filoque…I would think it workable…different faith traditions and jurisdictions.

John Paul II said that as he prayed for unity, he noted that many traditions and perspectives remain in this unity…