C
Captain_America
Guest
So is “consubstantiation” the same as “transubstantiation”? I’ve run into someone who believes the Church just became Lutheran!
- Status
P
PerfectTiming
Guest
No, they are not the same.
In transubstantiation, the hosts (bread and wine) truly become the Body and Blood of Christ, only the appearance of bread and wine remain. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
In consubstantiation, the hosts (bread and wine) coexist with the Body and Blood of Christ. This is the Lutheran belief.
In transubstantiation, the hosts (bread and wine) truly become the Body and Blood of Christ, only the appearance of bread and wine remain. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
In consubstantiation, the hosts (bread and wine) coexist with the Body and Blood of Christ. This is the Lutheran belief.
M
markomalley
Guest
The discussion needs to deal with the metaphysics of the issue.
In the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the belief is that substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the substance of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ, while the accidents (a/k/a physical properties) remain the same.
In the pseudo-doctrine of Consubstantiation, there is no belief that the substance of bread and wine change, rather there is the belief that the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ are temporarily added to the existing substance of Bread and Wine so that the two substances co-exist side by side. Also, if memory serves correctly, the “substance” of Body and Blood only exist temporarily; they vanish once the “Eucharist” service is done.
Having said that, Lutherans believe in a variant of consubstantiation that they call the “sacramental union.” You can Google that term for many better definitions than what I could provide. “Consubstantiation” is more high church Anglican (low church Anglicans are more “pneumatic” in their beliefs)
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I think I know where the confusion is happening in the OP.
In the new translation of the creed it says the Son is “consubstantial with the Father”. It means the exact same thing as “one in being with the Father”, which is what the creed used to say, the new way is just fancier. It doesn’t involve the Eucharist at all, but instead describes the relationship between the Father and the Son.
It certainly doesn’t change the Catholic belief in Transubstantiation, which involves the Eucharist.
In the new translation of the creed it says the Son is “consubstantial with the Father”. It means the exact same thing as “one in being with the Father”, which is what the creed used to say, the new way is just fancier. It doesn’t involve the Eucharist at all, but instead describes the relationship between the Father and the Son.
It certainly doesn’t change the Catholic belief in Transubstantiation, which involves the Eucharist.
T
thistle
Guest
Consubstantiation is a heresy.
M
MartyrForJesus
Guest
T
Teresara
Guest
Thank you for this! I’m newly returned and just not reading “Understanding the Revised Mass Texts” – Saw this thread and was about to get throughly confused. lol 
Now I understand the difference and the meanings.
God Bless
Now I understand the difference and the meanings.God Bless
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I would just add that every Lutheran I know and I know quite a few as part of my family is Lutheran, will tell you they do not believe in consubstantiation. They beleive in the real presence of the Lord how that happens they do not define.
J
jimrob
Guest
The Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox and Armenian communities all agree that following the words of consecration, Jesus Christ becomes really present in the Sacred Elements in Body, Blood Soul and Divinity. We also agree that the Sacred Elements retain the appearance, and the physical and chemical properties of bread and wine. People with coeliac disease continue to have a bad reaction to the gluten in the host and priests can get drunk from the chalice.
Many people have been killed because of the semantics of transubstantiation and many cardinals now burn in hell as a result. Try not to join them.
Many people have been killed because of the semantics of transubstantiation and many cardinals now burn in hell as a result. Try not to join them.
B
Brendan
Guest
I get the impression that what drove this person to make that claim is the new translation of the Litugy. “Consubstantial with the Father” is mentioned in the revised Creed.
If that is the case, the Creed is referencing the Nature of Christ relative to the Holy Trinity, which is a seperate issue from the the relation of Christ in the Eucharist relative to the substance of bread or wine.
In the Trinity, Christ is Consubstantial with the Father (and the Spirit), all three share the same Divine Nature or Substance. Thus each person of the Trinity is Consubstantial with the others.
In the Eucharist, the substances of bread and wine are replaced with the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. The bread and wine cease to be, and Christ is substantially present instead. That is Transubstantiation.
As referenced above, there is, any claim that the Eucharist is consubstantial with the substances of bread and wine would be incorrect and heretical.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree with this and most of the explanations presented above.
FWIW, in the Latin one should be able to see/hear the Catholic belief that after the consecration, the bread is no longer the bread but the body of Christ.
Hoc est enim Corpus Meum. <= Here clearly “this” is no longer the bread but refers to the Body as both hoc and corpus are neuter.
If the bread still remained as bread the words would be Hic est enim Corpus Meum, hic and *panis *(“bread,” in the sentence preceding) being both masculine.
The distinction is lost in the translation as the English demonstative “this” is more ambiguous and could be either the bread or the body. And perhaps adding to the confusion is the fact that the priest is holding the bread and looking at it when he pronounces the English words of consecration. Just saying.
- Status