Consubstantiation vs transubstantiation?

[ematouk]

I’ve wondered this for a while, but every priest I’ve asked is not really sure about the answer. Why is the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation condemned by the church?

The council of Trent says “If any one says, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and unique change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood while only the species of the bread and wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, sess. 13 can. 2; Denz 1652)

As I understand it consubstantiation means the the Eucharist is simultaneously the body/blood & wine/bread after consecration likened to the incarnation. Transubstantiation is a complete change in substance ie it is no longer bread or wine but only appears to be.

Paul and Jesus both appear to call the Eucharist “fruit of the vine” or “bread” after the words of consecration (Matthew 26:29 & 1 Corinthians 11:26). Doesn’t this support the consubstantiation view?

 

[MaryT777]

Our Lutheran friends on this forum reject the notion they teach consubstantiation. They will be here shortly I am sure to comment further.

Mary.

 

[ematouk]

My apologies for the inaccurate terminology - “sacramental union” I guess… My question is basically this - Could someone believe the Eucharist is fully bread/wine and also fully body/blood/soul/divinity of Christ simultaneously? If not why not?

 

[TheSurvivor]

Jesus said “Take and eat; this is my body.” (Mathew 26:26) Jesus Did Not say “with bread.” The Mathew 26:29 part I can only guess that perhaps Jesus was speaking of the previous cups that He did not consecrate.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

Could someone believe the Eucharist is fully bread/wine and also fully body/blood/soul/divinity of Christ simultaneously? If not why not?

No, and this is the crux of the matter. The Church has taught infallibly that the bread and wine cease to exist, their substance having changed into Christ’s body and blood. All that remains of the bread and wine is their accidents (physical properties).

Session XIII of the Council of Trent states:

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

Why can’t they say it? Because it’s not true. “This is My Body,” Our Lord said. The Church has handed on without error the authentic interpretation of these words, and has solemnly defined it as belonging to faith; therefore, to deny this interpretation is to be an heretic.

 

[steido01]

My apologies for the inaccurate terminology - “sacramental union” I guess… My question is basically this - Could someone believe the Eucharist is fully bread/wine and also fully body/blood/soul/divinity of Christ simultaneously? If not why not?

Exactly. Why limit God with our puny human reasoning?

We Lutherans take a bit more of a mystical approach to the Eucharist, not entirely dissimilar to our Orthodox friends like you. ‘Sacramental Union’ means only that the union cannot be explained; we see Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, etc. as human attempts to explain the miracle of the Real Presence. Transubstantiation could very well be the way that the Eucharist is made, but Christ does not tell us this - so it is not for us to pretend to know. We take the words of St. John Chrysostom as the most accurate, “And now you ask how the bread becomes the body of Christ, and the wine and the water become the blood of Christ. I shall tell you. The Holy Spirit comes upon them, and achieves things which surpass every word and thought … Let it be enough for you to understand that this takes place by the Holy Spirit.”

JonNC can explain this better than any Lutheran here.

JonNC:

Tag.

 

[ProVobis]

Jesus said “Take and eat; this is my body.” (Mathew 26:26) Jesus Did Not say “with bread.” The Mathew 26:29 part I can only guess that perhaps Jesus was speaking of the previous cups that He did not consecrate.

Actually in the English, “this” could very well be “bread.” (from the sentence before) so it’s sort of ambiguous. In this sense, consubstantiation may be easier to understand/accept as the priest is holding the Host.

OTOH in the Latin it is “Hoc est enim corpus meum” and “hoc” can only refer to “corpus” as both are neuter gender. There is no ambiguity because if it were still “panem” (bread) the demonstative would be “hic” not “hoc.” Clearly in the Latin it is transubstantiation. (In the Greek too, I believe.)

We lost a lot of precision switching from Latin to English. JonNC and I have had discussions on this and I have conceded that in the English either view can be inferred.

 

[TheSurvivor]

Ematouk, I hope that in the future I will have studied enough to answer this question better. Fr. Vincent Serpa on this forum should be able to give you an excellent answer. The best way I can tell you to find him is to go to the “Ask an apologist” part and scroll through answers until you find his name then click on it and send him a private message.

May God bless you and lead you to His Holy and Universal Truth which has been handed down to us by the Apostles in which we are United

 

[catholictiger]

I’ve wondered this for a while, but every priest I’ve asked is not really sure about the answer. Why is the Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation condemned by the church?

The council of Trent says “If any one says, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and unique change of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood while only the species of the bread and wine remain, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, sess. 13 can. 2; Denz 1652)

As I understand it consubstantiation means the the Eucharist is simultaneously the body/blood & wine/bread after consecration likened to the incarnation. Transubstantiation is a complete change in substance ie it is no longer bread or wine but only appears to be.

Paul and Jesus both appear to call the Eucharist “fruit of the vine” or “bread” after the words of consecration (Matthew 26:29 & 1 Corinthians 11:26). Doesn’t this support the consubstantiation view?

the root of the word tells you everything you need to know.

Consubstantiation con means with, so that means that Christ is one with the substance of bread and wine so it isn’t fully Christ

Transubstantiation means that the substance of bread and wine changes to the body and blood of Christ. Trans in latin means across literally but can also be understood as change.

 

[whoisdiss]

Transubstantiation teaches that the bread and wine become Christ body and blood. The appearence, taste, smell, and texture stay all the same. No they are not illusions, they stay the same. But it’s substance, what it is, it becomes Christ’s body and blood, soul and divinity! Also, the bread and wine are all of Christ. They are not parts of Christ, but all of Christ is present; hence the real presence. The Catholic Church, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, some Anglicans, and some Methodist accept this doctrine.

Consansubstantiation teaches Christ body and blood, soul and divinity, are inside of, under, and ontop of the bread and wine, but that the bread and wine itself does not change. Because of that, it all stays the same. Christ is fully there, not parts of him, but all of him is fully there; hence the real presence. Many Lutherans, some Anglicans, some Methodist, and some Presbyterians accept this doctrine.

Calling the host Christ body and the bread can be used interchangebaly, as it can with the drink. It still appears to be bread and wine so you can still use bread and wine to describe it, but its substance is Christ’s flesh and blood.

 

[steido01]

Consansubstantiation teaches Christ body and blood, soul and divinity, are inside of, under, and ontop of the bread and wine, but that the bread and wine itself does not change. Because of that, it all stays the same. Christ is fully there, not parts of him, but all of him is fully there; hence the real presence. Many Lutherans, some Anglicans, some Methodist, and some Presbyterians accept this doctrine.

Calling the host Christ body and the bread can be used interchangebaly, as it can with the drink. It still appears to be bread and wine so you can still use bread and wine to describe it, but its substance is Christ’s flesh and blood.

Lutherans do not believe in Consubstantiation. The “in, with and under” are not used to mean that Christ is somehow contained in the elements, but rather to signify that no part of the Bread and Wine have been unchanged - a transformation has occurred that really, truly makes Christ present in every possible sense; in, with, under, around, over, sideways and entirely really present. These words were meant to combat the “real absence” of folks like Calvin or the outright representation view of Zwingli. Lutherans do not believe that Christ has been obscenely combined with the elements. Make more sense?

As for the second paragraph, I can agree with how you’ve phrased it.