Consubstantiation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_J
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_J

Guest
M0nkey said:
I see how most plp can have a problem with this definition by the Church. Correct me if I’m wrong, this goes for everybody, but the Church also defines it as consubstantiation, which I think has a more proper meaning, that is, both bread and flesh, wine and blood, co-exist in the species of wine and bread.

In His Love,
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that’s correct. I believe that the theory of “consubstantiation” is unacceptable to Catholics.
 
Agreed, if the Eucharist was consubstantially Christ and bread/wine then bread and wine would be substantially present in the Eucharistic species. Only Christ is substantially present while the accidents of the bread and wine remain.

In Christ through Mary
 
if I’m wrong, this goes for everybody, but the Church also defines it as consubstantiation, which I think has a more proper meaning, that is, both bread and flesh, wine and blood, co-exist in the species of wine and bread.

Keep in mind that in this context, “substance” has a technical theological-philsophical meaning.
 
M0nkey said:
Can you explain this?
Click to expand...
It’s rooted in aristotilian logic:

The substance/essence of a thing is the perfect idealization of what it is; the substance of a person is their soul.

The accidents are what it appears to be, no matter its substance.

Using the example of a man sitting in a cave, looking at the back wall.

He perceives the shadows of a thing as the thing itself, but the shadow, which he sees truly is not the thing, merely an image of the thing.

The accidents are the image; the substance is that which causes the accidents.

In the Eucharist, the accidents (the appearance) stays the same, but the substance (the cause) ceases to be bread, and is replaced with Jesus.
 
An interesting side note is that Martin Luther, although he objected to the Roman Catholic theory of transubstantiation, also said that it is less of an “error” than Zwingli’s theory that the Eucharist is just a symbol.
 
In the Eucharist, the accidents (the appearance) stays the same, but the substance (the cause) ceases to be bread, and is replaced with Jesus.

To be specific, the substance of the bread and wine is replaced with the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ.
 
Lutherans (confessional ones at least) do not declare consubstantiation as their belief. If you read the Book of Concord, you will find instead the term “sacramental union.” I spoke with some Lutherans about the term consubstantiation, and they informed me that this is applied by others to what Lutherans believe, although the term is not found in their confessional documents. Luther and Lutherans reject transubstantiation.
 
Madaglan said:
Lutherans (confessional ones at least) do not declare consubstantiation as their belief. If you read the Book of Concord, you will find instead the term “sacramental union.” I spoke with some Lutherans about the term consubstantiation, and they informed me that this is applied by others to what Lutherans believe, although the term is not found in their confessional documents. Luther and Lutherans reject transubstantiation.
Click to expand...
As a Lutheran, I was taught consubstantiation was the term, by my pastor, from the catechism. I learned on NCF that this wasn’t our (now their) term.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
As a Lutheran, I was taught consubstantiation was the term, by my pastor, from the catechism. I learned on NCF that this wasn’t our (now their) term.
Click to expand...
I’m not surprised. The people who told me about the “sacramental union” not “consubstantiation” distinction are those over at LutherQuest (LCMS folks).
 
Madaglan said:
I’m not surprised. The people who told me about the “sacramental union” not “consubstantiation” distinction are those over at LutherQuest (LCMS folks).
Click to expand...
I came from a very conservative Lutheran parish (when the ELCA was formed, something I was involved with before embracing Orthoodoxy. After I left, the new ELCA sent a woman pastor as a sign to get with the program), and I think the LCMS published our catechism.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
I came from a very conservative Lutheran parish (when the ELCA was formed, something I was involved with before embracing Orthoodoxy. After I left, the new ELCA sent a woman pastor as a sign to get with the program), and I think the LCMS published our catechism.
Click to expand...
All right. I never was Lutheran, so I’m just going by what Lutherans have told me.
 
Isa_Almisry said:
I came from a very conservative Lutheran parish (when the ELCA was formed, something I was involved with before embracing Orthoodoxy. After I left, the new ELCA sent a woman pastor as a sign to get with the program), and I think the LCMS published our catechism.
Click to expand...
On the ELCA, not all ELCA parishes are liberal or “progressive”. Several parishioners at my Orthodox church have told me about a nearby ELCA pastor whose office is filled with icons and who incorporates Orthodox teachings into his sermons. 😃
 
Madaglan said:
On the ELCA, not all ELCA parishes are liberal or “progressive”.
Click to expand...
True. I once visited a conservative Lutheran parish which had just recently disassociated itself from the ELCA.

It was in the process of joining the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS), which I guess is even more conservative than the WELS.
Madaglan said:
Several parishioners at my Orthodox church have told me about a nearby ELCA pastor whose office is filled with icons and who incorporates Orthodox teachings into his sermons. 😃
Click to expand...
Wow!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top