consubstantiation?

[cardenio]

All the apologetics books, tapes, essays, etc. I’ve explored argue for transubstantiation and against pure symbolism. But my MS Lutheran cousins believe in consubstantiation - that is, it is 100% bread and also 100% the body of Christ (the way Jesus is 100% God and 100% Human).

I’ve got a very handy apologetics book that says to begin discussions with the Eucharist because this is the most important point where protestants and catholics disagree.

But all I see is “the real presence is there.” I need a good argument against the presence of bread. Anybody… ¿ayúdame?

Also, an unimportant and irrelevant question: does anybody agree with me that it doesn’t look like bread? That’s always bugged me. People say “It looks like bread” and I want to say no, it does not look like bread! Bread is neither flat nor round. Sigh…

 

[threej_lc]

Although transubstantiation over consubstantiation is indeed doctrine, I’m not sure how on earth to defend that one.

With respect to the host looking like bread, keep it in context. It doesn’t look like loaf bread. It looks like Matza bread. You know, the flat, round bread the jews used to celebrate passover, when they didn’t have time for the yeast to raise the bread when escaping Egypt?

Josh

 

[FCEGM]

Cardenio,

In an article by Msgr. Robert Sokolowski in an issue of “Homiletics and Pastoral Review” (Winter, 1997) he specifically writes about Transubstantiation he makes some cogent points:

. . .to say that in the Eucharist the bread and wine remain what they are but acquire a new signification would contradict the logic of the Incarnation. Christ was not simply a prophet who pointed out the way to the Father; he was the way to the Father. He did not just communicate the truth about God, he was the Word of God. The believer comes to the Father not by the way and the truth that are signified by Christ, but through Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. Analogously, if the bread and wine were to remain bread and wine, they would point us toward the Death and Resurrection of Christ and toward the Son of God, they would signify him and what he did, but they would not be his presence and the presence of his action among us. The Eucharist would fail to continue, sacramentally, the form of the Incarnation, and we would be deprived of the presence, the bodily presence, of the way, the truth, and the life. The Incarnation would have been withdrawn from the world.

The Eucharist continues the Incarnation, but there are important differences between the two mysteries. In the Incarnation, when the Word becomes flesh, the divine nature does not transubstantiate the human nature. It does not take the place of the human being. To say that it did would fall into a monophysite or gnostic understanding of the Incarnation. To understand the Incarnation as a transubstantiation would imply that the human nature ceased to be but only appeared to be when united with the divine. Instead, the human substance, soul and body, is integrally present in the Incarnation. In this respect, the human substance in the Incarnation is different from the substance of bread in the Eucharist. The human substance, soul and body, remain intact, but the substance of the bread does not.

Indeed, it is the very material and bodily quality of the Incarnation that calls for Transubstantiation in the Eucharist. If Christ is to be present in the sacrament, he must be present in his divine and human natures, in his soul and body. And if his body is to be present, the bread cannot be. The one thing cannot be two material substances, both bread and a human body, not even the glorified human body of Christ. If it is the one it cannot be the other. The two bodily natures exclude one another, and it is the bodily presence of Christ that is specifically emphasized in the words of consecration. The body of Christ is not with the bread but takes the place of the bread in the change we call Transubstantiation. If we deny this change, we deny the bodily presence of the glorified Christ, and hence we deny the presence of Christ. Without Transubstantiation the sacramental presence of Christ would not occur.

Protestants who do not believe in the Real Presence view the bread and wine used in the Eucharist to be given additional meaning in the same way. Once the bread and wine is consecrated, the bread takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s body, and the wine takes on the additional meaning of being Christ’s blood. The bread and wine don’t literally change but instead take on a higher meaning within the context of the sacrament. Once the Eucharist is consumed and the sacrament is complete, the bread and wine lose the additional meanings they had during the ceremony and become simply bread and wine again.

It seems to me, then, Cardenio, that in the “consubstation” scenario it would be the community giving meaning to what has occurred, rather than Christ Himself. IOW, “We are doing this to remember Christ and we give this memorial the meaning of His presence among us, which meaning is no longer present when the service is finished” rather than, “Christ accomplishes this personally in the person of the priest, giving Himself without quarter eternally.”

Also, an unimportant and irrelevant question: does anybody agree with me that it doesn’t look like bread? That’s always bugged me. People say “It looks like bread” and I want to say no, it does not look like bread! Bread is neither flat nor round.

Well, as a child I thought the Host was exactly what my soul looked like.

 

[RobNY]

cardenio:

All the apologetics books, tapes, essays, etc. I’ve explored argue for transubstantiation and against pure symbolism. But my MS Lutheran cousins believe in consubstantiation - that is, it is 100% bread and also 100% the body of Christ (the way Jesus is 100% God and 100% Human).

I’ve got a very handy apologetics book that says to begin discussions with the Eucharist because this is the most important point where protestants and catholics disagree.

But all I see is “the real presence is there.” I need a good argument against the presence of bread. Anybody… ¿ayúdame?

Also, an unimportant and irrelevant question: does anybody agree with me that it doesn’t look like bread? That’s always bugged me. People say “It looks like bread” and I want to say no, it does not look like bread! Bread is neither flat nor round. Sigh…

“This is my body.”

Hey Mary, I know you’re an English geek like me. Let’s tear this apart.

This= my body. Therefore, what Jesus was holding in his hand= his body.

If He had meant for consubstantiation, he could have said:

“This bread is my body.”

Therefore: This bread= my body. In that case, it would be both bread and body.

Ask them to explain why Jesus literally equated what he was holding with his body, and not bread with his body.

However, this runs up against the roadblock of something having two substances at once, when it’s only really supposed to have one substance. The idea of consubstantiation comes because people refuse to believe that it’s actually Jesus, and not bread. So, you have one part of your head screaming “it’s still bread!,” and the other side screaming “but Jesus said it is His body,” so you compromise (and it’s far more honest than the pure symbolism evasion, but still, inaccurate). People find it flat out illogical that something that looks, smells and tastes like bread isn’t bread. But the idea of having two substances is far more illogical than the idea of accidents and such.

Furthermore, there is the problem of giving latria to the Eucharist. If we are to worship the Eucharist (i.e., Eucharistic Adoration), then we would be worshipping bread as well as Christ. Since that’s a major violation of the first commandment, it can’t really be done. So perhaps you can ask your cousins, “do you worship the Eucharist?” They can’t answer yes. Of course, it probably never occured to them to do so.

Personally, my angle would be to undermine their other Eucharistic problem: the sacrifice of Mass. Protestants reject the Mass as a sacrifice.* What you have to do is, show through the Bible how the Mass is a sacrifice. Luther vehemently rejected this. To accept the Mass as a Sacrifice is virtually to abandon protestantism.

*Anglo-Catholics may consider it so, but that’s the extreme exception among protestants (the Anglican articles of faith are explicitly against this, but Anglicans no longer have to hold to them).

Here’s how you go about it. Read this. 'Tis long, but 'tis good. It will simultaneously teach you things you were never taught about the Eucharist (really cool stuff!), show you the Protestant objections against it (helpful for anticipating their responses!), and provide very strong support for the idea.

Basically, when Christ said ‘do this in memory of me’ he meant it in the same way the Jews observe the passover, as a making present of what had happened in the past. As the Catechism explains:

1. "In the sense of Sacred Scripture the memorial is not merely the recollection of past events but the proclamation of the mighty works wrought by God for men. In the liturgical celebration of these events, they become in a certain way present and real. This is how Israel understands its liberation from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the Exodus events are made present to the memory of believers so that they may conform their lives to them. "

And of course, the sacrificial nature of the whole thing (I mean, Christ the “Lamb of God,” the whole thing just screams sacrifice). I could keep going, but I trust you to read it Mary. He quotes Luther as saying this (about the Mass as a sacrifice):

What do I care about the multitude and renown of those who have gone astray? Truth is stronger than them all! [the papists appeal] to the sayings of the holy Fathers, so many authorities and so widespread a custom, constantly observed throughout the world. What shall we say to these authorities? I say first of all that, even if we had nothing else to answer, it is safer to reject them all rather than to admit that the Mass is a work and a sacrifice; lest corrupting both faith and Mass together, we deny the word of Christ

Anyway, tell me if I’ve hit on anything interesting.

 

[cardenio]

Rob!! You cannot substitute an equals sign for the word “is.” You ought to know that. Let me write out a proof for you:

A square is a rectangle. (given)
square = rectangle. (substitution property of equality)
rectangle = square. (recipricol property of equality)

See? It doesn’t always work.

One time I did point out that Jesus said “This is my body” and not “This bread is my body.” It was dismissed as a moot point.

RobNY:

However, this runs up against the roadblock of something having two substances at once, when it’s only really supposed to have one substance. The idea of consubstantiation comes because people refuse to believe that it’s actually Jesus, and not bread. So, you have one part of your head screaming “it’s still bread!,” and the other side screaming “but Jesus said it is His body,” so you compromise (and it’s far more honest than the pure symbolism evasion, but still, inaccurate). People find it flat out illogical that something that looks, smells and tastes like bread isn’t bread. But the idea of having two substances is far more illogical than the idea of accidents and such.

But Jesus did it. It is logically impossible to be 100% God and 100% human. The Greeks knew that; that’s why their sons-of-gods were 50% God and 50% human (unless both their parents were gods). The reasoning is: If Jesus could be 100% human and 100% God, why can’t “this” be 100% bread and 100% body?

Furthermore, there is the problem of giving latria to the Eucharist. If we are to worship the Eucharist (i.e., Eucharistic Adoration), then we would be worshipping bread as well as Christ. Since that’s a major violation of the first commandment, it can’t really be done. So perhaps you can ask your cousins, “do you worship the Eucharist?” They can’t answer yes. Of course, it probably never occured to them to do so.

GOOD POINT!! I LOVE THIS!! Yet another reason why I’m very glad it’s Catholicism that’s true: tangible God. Something to focus on.

Personally, my angle would be to undermine their other Eucharistic problem: the sacrifice of Mass. Protestants reject the Mass as a sacrifice.* What you have to do is, show through the Bible how the Mass is a sacrifice. Luther vehemently rejected this. To accept the Mass as a Sacrifice is virtually to abandon protestantism.

Last time we were in a debate, there were five of us in the room: my clueless sister, me, and three lutherans. I ran through my polited version of “Catholicism is the only form of Christianity that has preserved the teachings of the apostles. If I were God, I would not lead my followers astray for 1517 years, nor promise the guidance of the Holy Spirit if I did not intend to send the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if Protestantism is true, I am smarter than God. We both agree that God is omniscient, and therefore smarter than me. We can conclude that Protestantism is intrinsically inconsistant and therefore false.” My cousin asked me what a Protestant was. (She was young and can be excused. But I thought it was funny.)

I could keep going, but I trust you to read it Mary.

Oh, you shouldn’t, not when it’s that long!! Ahh… but I will try.

 

[RobNY]

cardenio:

Rob!! You cannot substitute an equals sign for the word “is.” You ought to know that. blah blah blah blah.

Guh, I didn’t think I had to point this out to you Mary! In this case, it does work, however.

One time I did point out that Jesus said “This is my body” and not “This bread is my body.” It was dismissed as a moot point.

It’s always best to ignore points you can’t argue, no?

But Jesus did it. It is logically impossible to be 100% God and 100% human. The Greeks knew that; that’s why their sons-of-gods were 50% God and 50% human (unless both their parents were gods). The reasoning is: If Jesus could be 100% human and 100% God, why can’t “this” be 100% bread and 100% body?

You are confusing essence and substance. It is forgivable, but still wrong. Divinity and humanity are not “substance.” My bone is “substance,” but my humanity is not. Think about it.

GOOD POINT!! I LOVE THIS!! Yet another reason why I’m very glad it’s Catholicism that’s true: tangible God. Something to focus on.

Indeed, I do too.

Last time we were in a debate, there were five of us in the room: my clueless sister, me, and three lutherans. I ran through my polited version of “Catholicism is the only form of Christianity that has preserved the teachings of the apostles. If I were God, I would not lead my followers astray for 1517 years, nor promise the guidance of the Holy Spirit if I did not intend to send the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if Protestantism is true, I am smarter than God. We both agree that God is omniscient, and therefore smarter than me. We can conclude that Protestantism is intrinsically inconsistant and therefore false.” My cousin asked me what a Protestant was. (She was young and can be excused. But I thought it was funny.)

If they are honest, ask them if they believe Lutheranism is a return to what the early Christians thought. If they say so, then ask them why they don’t believe in the Real Presence in the way the Early Christians did. (That link has tons of quotes from the Fathers.)

And extending His hand, He gave them the Bread which His right hand had made holy: ‘Take, all of you eat of this; which My word has made holy. Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread, and do not scatter the crumbs; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it. Take, eat, entertaining no doubt of faith, because this is My Body, and whoever eats it in belief eats in it Fire and Spirit. But if any doubter eat of it, for him it will be only bread. And whoever eats in belief the Bread made holy in My name, if he be pure, he will be preserved in his purity; and if he be a sinner, he will be forgiven.’ But if anyone despise it or reject it or treat it with ignominy, it may be taken as certainty that he treats with ignominy the Son, who called it and actually made it to be His Body.", -“Homilies” 4,4 ca… 350 A.D., (St. Ephraim)

“9. These things having learnt, and being fully persuaded that what seems bread is not bread, though bread by taste, but the Body of Christ; and that what seems wine is not wine, though the taste will have it so, but the Blood of Christ; and that of this David sung of old, saying, (And bread which strengtheneth man’s heart, and oil to make his face to shine) [Ps. 104:15], strengthen thine heart', partaking thereof as spiritual, and make the face of thy soul to shine’. And so having it unveiled by a pure conscience, mayest thou behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and proceed from glory to glory [2 Cor. 3:18], in Christ Jesus our Lord:–To whom be honor, and might, and glory, for ever and ever. Amen.”

Source: St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogic Catechesis 4,1, c. 350 A.D.:
​

​

Anyway, the quotes from Ignatius are a stitch too. Hehe. He manages to mention that unity is preserved by those subordinate to a Bishop, and the Real Presence in the same breath.

No you shouldn’t, not when it’s that long!! Ahh… but I will try.

No, make sure you read it. You’ll get a much better feel for the Eucharist as a Sacrifice. Once you can support it biblically, then use that link I gave you to show the interpretation of the Fathers of the Eucharist as a sacrifice.

 

[RobNY]

Oh yeah, some Eucharist as Sacrifice quotes I culled from it:

On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’"
-Ch 14 (the Didache)

“Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices.” Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4](Clement of Rome)

"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices

offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him." “Dialogue with Trypho”, Ch. 117, circa 130-160 A.D.(St. Justin Martyr)

Moreover, as I said before, concerning the sacrifices which you at that time offered, God speaks through Malachias, one of the twelve, as follows: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices from your hands; for from the rising of the sun until its setting, my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a clean offering: for great is my name among the gentiles, says the Lord; but you profane it.’ It is of the sacrifices

offered to Him in every place by us, the gentiles, that is, of the Bread of the Eucharist and likewise of the cup of the Eucharist, that He speaks at that time; and He says that we glorify His name, while you profane it." -“Dialogue with Trypho”, (Justin Martyr)[41: 8-10]

(Note how the Fathers consistently interpreted that verse from Malachi! this verse is the one they’re talking about)

Malachi 1:11-12
Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations (Gentiles), and in every place incense (Dhouay Rheims - sacrifice) is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. 12 But you profane it when you say that the LORD’s table is polluted, and the food for it may be despised.

“The priest who imitates that which Christ did, truly takes the place of Christ, and offers there in the Church a true and perfect sacrifice to God the Father.”, Source: St. Cyprian wrote to the Ephesians circa 258 A.D:,

"‘Holy, holy, holy Lord Sabaoth, heaven and earth is full of Your glory.’ Heaven is full, and full is the earth with your magnificent glory, Lord of Virtues. Full also is this Sacrifice

, with your strength and your communion; for to You we offer this living Sacrifice, this unbloody oblation.,-“The Sacramentary of Serapion, Prayer of the Eucharistic Sacrifice” [13],

"I wish to add something that is plainly awe-inspiring, but do not be astonished or upset. This Sacrifice

, no matter who offers it, be it Peter or Paul, is always the same as that which Christ gave His disciples and which priests now offer: The offering of today is in no way inferior to that which Christ offered, because it is not men who sanctify the offering of today; it is the same Christ who sanctified His own. For just as the words which God spoke are the very same as those which the priest now speaks, so too the oblation is the very same."

Source: St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Second Epistle to Timothy,” 2,4, c. 397 A.D.​

"For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice

itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf. Source: St. Augustine, Sermons 172,2, circa 400 A.DHave fun!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

. . .to say that in the Eucharist the bread and wine remain what they are but acquire a new signification would contradict the logic of the Incarnation.

But why - Christ was God, became man, and remains God; so why can’t the bread remain what it was, and a new substance be added to it ?​

Christ was not simply a prophet who pointed out the way to the Father; he was the way to the Father. He did not just communicate the truth about God, he was the Word of God. The believer comes to the Father not by the way and the truth that are signified by Christ, but through Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. Analogously, if the bread and wine were to remain bread and wine, they would point us toward the Death and Resurrection of Christ and toward the Son of God, they would signify him and what he did, but they would not be his presence and the presence of his action among us. The Eucharist would fail to continue, sacramentally, the form of the Incarnation, and we would be deprived of the presence, the bodily presence, of the way, the truth, and the life. The Incarnation would have been withdrawn from the world.

This is to forget that the Lutheran doctrine is not that bread remains bread, but that the substance of bread remains, and the substance of the Body is added.​

The author is attacking transignification - not consubstantiation. ##

 

[cardenio]

RobNY:

Guh, I didn’t think I had to point this out to you Mary! In this case, it does work, however.

Jesus’s words: “This is my body”
Catholic interpretation: “This is my body.”
Lutheran interpretation: “This bread is my body.”

So… what about when Jesus said he didn’t know the day or hour of the end of the world (matt 24:36), and you thought it was just a fancy way of saying that it wasn’t for us to know? If he meant “it isn’t for you to know” why did he say “I don’t know”?

Do you follow the analogy? It’s late and I’m droopy-sleepy and not thinking very lucidly.

I guess it boils down to this: Can we prove that the Catholic interpretation is correct without falling on the much-loved Roma locuta est, causa finita est?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

cardenio:

Jesus’s words: “This is my body”
Catholic interpretation: “This is my body.”
Lutheran interpretation: “This bread is my body.”

So… what about when Jesus said he didn’t know the day or hour of the end of the world (matt 24:36), and you thought it was just a fancy way of saying that it wasn’t for us to know? If he meant “it isn’t for you to know” why did he say “I don’t know”?

Do you follow the analogy? It’s late and I’m droopy-sleepy and not thinking very lucidly.

I guess it boils down to this: Can we prove that the Catholic interpretation is correct without falling on the much-loved Roma locuta est, causa finita est?

Seems clear enough ​

IOW, all Christianities - even Catholicism - have their weak spots where they stop saying “The Bible means what it says - why can’t you see that ? It’s obvious what is meant”; and start saying, “Well, actually, you mustn’t take it too literally - what it really means is…” ##

 

[RobNY]

cardenio:

Jesus’s words: “This is my body”
Catholic interpretation: “This is my body.”
Lutheran interpretation: “This bread is my body.”

So… what about when Jesus said he didn’t know the day or hour of the end of the world (matt 24:36), and you thought it was just a fancy way of saying that it wasn’t for us to know? If he meant “it isn’t for you to know” why did he say “I don’t know”?

Do you follow the analogy? It’s late and I’m droopy-sleepy and not thinking very lucidly.

I guess it boils down to this: Can we prove that the Catholic interpretation is correct without falling on the much-loved Roma locuta est, causa finita est?

That is the advantage of a magisterium to interpret Scripture. Chalk up one point to the Catholics. But, on a further note, the Eucharist has a much wider teaching than simply one verse, which can be nebulous. The this is my body is presented numerous times, as well as the Bread of Life discourse where Jesus tells us that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. He says in neither one that we must eat bread which is his flesh, merely that we must eat his flesh.

In any case, you showed it yourself. The Catholic version shows that Catholics interpret Jesus’ words as is, while Lutherans mentally substitute This (bread) is my body (and yes, they even do exactly that on the MS Lutheran website). For believers in Scripture alone, this is not justifiable (after all, Scripture is as is). For believers in Tradition and the interpretation by the Magisterium, this is unsupportable (because consubstantiation isn’t as the Magisterium has defined it, or as Tradition has held it). That is why the doctrine is unacceptable.

Furthermore, there is the difference between fancy language and plain language. “This is my body.” Plain language. In any case, we know from Scripture that omniscence is an attribute of God, so if we assume that Jesus isn’t contradicting himself, then we must assume that there is some meaning that eludes us that isn’t necessarily as plain. “This is my body,” has no sticky theological implications. There is no reason *not *to take it as is. Especially in context with the other Eucharistic teachings. Jesus speaks very literally in this context. He allows many followers to abandon him in their disgust. If he’s always literal in other cases, why not here?

Personally, I think you need to attack the issue on all fronts: the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, and the authority of the Church.

EDIT: Oh yeah, before I called Christ’s divinity his essence, I should have said nature.

 

[cardenio]

RobNY:

That is the advantage of a magisterium to interpret Scripture. Chalk up one point to the Catholics.

YES!! Yet another reason I’m glad Catholicism is true. You don’t have to know everything.

But, on a further note, the Eucharist has a much wider teaching than simply one verse, which can be nebulous. The this is my body is presented numerous times, as well as the Bread of Life discourse where Jesus tells us that we must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. He says in neither one that we must eat bread which is his flesh, merely that we must eat his flesh.

What about when he calls himself the bread of life?

In any case, you showed it yourself. The Catholic version shows that Catholics interpret Jesus’ words as is, while Lutherans mentally substitute This (bread) is my body (and yes, they even do exactly that on the MS Lutheran website). For believers in Scripture alone, this is not justifiable (after all, Scripture is as is).

Another good point. Ugh… I left my notebook upstairs. Maybe I’ll copy this to mic word and write it down later. But, yes, very good point.

Personally, I think you need to attack the issue on all fronts: the Real Presence, the Sacrifice, and the authority of the Church.

You should be proud of me - I’m reading the article you linked me. It is long… I am not finished with it yet. But… where did you find the site? Is it credible? It looks like a site you can get free off freeservers.com or something.

EDIT: Oh yeah, before I called Christ’s divinity his essence, I should have said nature.

Goodness, now I feel like a moron. What is the difference?