Consubstantiation

[roemer]

I recently heard the argument for consubstantiation that is very persuasive. It makes transsubstantiation difficult to defend.

The gist of the argument is this. Christ has two natures, human and divine, in one person. Similarly, the Eucharist can ( and according to this, does) have two natures, that of the Body of Christ ( body, blood,soul, and divinity) but also that of bread just as it appears.

This does not constradict the words of institution because it agrees with them; I( the words do not say this is only…).
The argument says that this is superior to transubstantiation because it mirrors Christs human and divine natures and because it does not contradict the evidence of the senses.

Anyone have a reply to this; becuase I don’t.

 

[metal1633]

roemer:

I recently heard the argument for consubstantiation that is very persuasive. It makes transsubstantiation difficult to defend.

The gist of the argument is this. Christ has two natures, human and divine, in one person. Similarly, the Eucharist can ( and according to this, does) have two natures, that of the Body of Christ ( body, blood,soul, and divinity) but also that of bread just as it appears.

This does not constradict the words of institution because it agrees with them; I( the words do not say this is only…).
The argument says that this is superior to transubstantiation because it mirrors Christs human and divine natures and because it does not contradict the evidence of the senses.

Anyone have a reply to this; becuase I don’t.

If the Bread is physically present and Christ is Spiritually present then how is that a REAL presence? The Church teachs that the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially present. `This presence is called “real”…because it is presence in the fullest sense:

In Consubstantiation only the plain BREAD is physically present.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

roemer:

I recently heard the argument for consubstantiation that is very persuasive. It makes transsubstantiation difficult to defend.

The gist of the argument is this. Christ has two natures, human and divine, in one person. Similarly, the Eucharist can ( and according to this, does) have two natures, that of the Body of Christ ( body, blood,soul, and divinity) but also that of bread just as it appears.

This does not constradict the words of institution because it agrees with them; I( the words do not say this is only…).
The argument says that this is superior to transubstantiation because it mirrors Christs human and divine natures and because it does not contradict the evidence of the senses.

Anyone have a reply to this; becuase I don’t.

Sure, Christ was not God/human and vegetable. The two natures both human and Divine of Christ in the one person of Christ are contained in the “Body of Christ” presented in Sacramental form. Not in the “Body of Christ” and the bread. Christ’s humanity is not expressed in the bread and His Divinity expressed in a spiritual manner. The Scriptures say that we must see with the eyes of Faith, for the apostles saw and heard Christ, but with their senses only perceived a man, and did not perceive the presence of God among them through their human senses.

 

[KennySe]

roemer:

Anyone have a reply to this; becuase I don’t.

I have a reply to this.

When Jesus said, “This is my body”, He did NOT say “My Body is with this bread.”

When the Early Church Fathers taught and wrote that the Eucharist is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ, they did not teach and write that Jesus’ Flesh and Blood was together with bread and together with wine.

Which contemporary Church Fathers refuted (or clarified) what the following taught and wrote?
catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

 

[agname]

Augustine:
“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction” (Sermons 272 A.D. 411]).

Justin the Martyr:
"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration * and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 A.D. 151]).

Theodore of Mopsuestia:
“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not according to their nature, but receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord. We ought…not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord, into which they were transformed by the descent of the Holy Spirit” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 A.D. 405]).*

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

roemer:

The gist of the argument is this. Christ has two natures, human and divine, in one person. Similarly, the Eucharist can ( and according to this, does) have two natures, that of the Body of Christ ( body, blood,soul, and divinity) but also that of bread just as it appears.

This does not constradict the words of institution because it agrees with them; I( the words do not say this is only…).
The argument says that this is superior to transubstantiation because it mirrors Christs human and divine natures and because it does not contradict the evidence of the senses.

I can see how one might be led to believe that having an earthly thing (bread) somehow coexisting with a divine (Christ) somehow mirrors his incarnation, but I don’t read it that way. Why? Because Christ, while having two natures, did not represent such a radical duality. His flesh was just as much Christ as was His purely spiritual self. Also, saying that consubstantiation does not contradict the words of institution is weak. According to that reasoning, we can now introduce most anything we want into an unqualified (not emphatically exclusive) statement in the Scriptures and still have a sound doctrine. Usually Protestants have been smart enough to just add their belief into Scripture (hey, since when does the Bible say “faith alone?” Oh, since Luther added the alone despite its absence from the Greek). If they added bread to their translation of the institution, it would significantly strengthen their arguement.

 

[JimG]

Aside from the fact that consubstantiation is really not consistent with the words of institution, it is more difficult to believe, not less.

For me, to conceive of Christ’s body intermixed with the substance of bread presents more problems than transubstantiation–where the substance of the bread is gone, and Christ is fully present, only under the appearances of bread. Note that Christ does not take on the appearance of bread; the appearances of bread do not inhere in Christ, he is present beneath those appearances.

JimG

 

[Fortiterinre]

I knew my screen name would come in handy some day! “Fortiter in Re” loosely translates as “Strong in Substance,” and the philosophical concept of substance (Latin singular, “Res,” general plural, “Re”) is what transubstantiation and consubstantiation deal with. The Res or Substance of something is its most basic expressed nature–vaguely like an element in the periodic table. The Eucharist is a single substance, the most powerful single substance we have in the physical world. Consubstantiation reduces the Eucharist to a compound, a combination of a supernatural Res and a physical Res. It yokes the Eucharistic Christ to a physical substance in a way which is not quite appropriate to Divinity–sort of like saying the miraculous wine at Cana wasn’t real wine, just water that the fun, social presence of Jesus made seem like wine. These miracle start with ordinary things like water and bread, but to say that they somehow partially remain water and bread definitely dilutes the miracle.

 

[Origen]

The doctrine of the Real Presence is so complicated, I wonder if it’s even possible to articulate the importance of the differences between various protestant heresies and the teaching of the Church in a discussion forum?

For those wishing to study the matter in a rigorous and comprehensive presentation, I highly recommend a book published by Ignatius Press:

The Hidden Manna, by Father James T. O’Connor.
It is so important that we not be swayed by intuition or feeling, but by faith and reason.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Though I’m not Catholic, myself I doubt that even the best argument for Consubstantiation would hold well when compared to a well articulated argument for Transubstantiation. I would recommend reading the short article on Consubstantiation on the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org

Myself, I wanted to understand it and thought it would be hard to understand, but after looking into it just a little, no it’s not that difficult. Get grounded in Transubstantiation a little more. And remember, if it’s true, than the Consecrated host IS changed metaphysically into Christ (both natures present in one person, as he is in heaven, alive). The Lutheran or Anglican will say that the “accidents” of the bread and wine are not “accidents.” They are really bread and wine. The analogy they claim to have, if I would understand it correctly, would end if applied to Christ’s sacrifice. Christ’s person was crucified, both natures, in a way that is proper for that to happen to each individual nature. Read Council of Ephesus (St. Cyril of Jerusalem) to be straight on that. Does your Consubstantiation contact believe that the Eucharist is a sacrifice? Probably not, otherwise they’d have priests! But still, challenge him by asking
“Since Christ’s person was crucified, and by His Divine nature atonement was made perfectly, and by His Human nature it was made effective to us, since we’re human, why would the two natures be divided so as not to be united in such a way in the Eucharist? In the Union of Christ’s natures, they were united in such a way that the whole person is Christ. The same with the Eucharist.” *** I think I’m right there.

Or - Prove that it is a sacrifice, and then show the absurdity of "sacrificing bread that’s not His flesh. "

Ok, somebody else develop that, I’m really trying here. Yeah, it’s a difficult argument to combat if you’re friend is really into it, but I’m sure a little Scripture and Aquinas will go a long way in aiding you.

 

[GeorgeCooney]

roemer:

I recently heard the argument for consubstantiation that is very persuasive. It makes transsubstantiation difficult to defend…

Anyone have a reply to this; becuase I don’t.

JMJ

Your profile lists you as Catholic. As a Catholic you are required to ACCEPT and PROFESS defined dogmas of the Church. If you have doubts about a dogma, you must accept that you are in error and that you must seek help through prayer and perhaps your confessor or spiritual advisor.

A defined dogma is not open for critique, even if you do have uncontrollable doubts. Such critique could, and probably will, lead others into doubts who previously accepted the dogma. Through such critique, you may be responsible for their loss of Faith. That is why a defined dogma is not open for critique under pain of heresy…

The Church has defined the Consecration performed by the ordained priest (in Persona Christi) as defined dogma.

Christ becomes present in the Sacrament of the Altar by transformation of the whole substance of the bread into His Body and of the whole substance of the wine into His Blood. (De fide definita.)

 

[Matt16_18]

The Catholic doctrine of the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is true God and true man.

The Lutheran doctrine of Consubstantiation teaches that Jesus is true God and true bread.

 

[joelmichael]

As a Catholic you are required to ACCEPT and PROFESS defined dogmas of the Church. If you have doubts about a dogma, you must accept that you are in error and that you must seek help through prayer and perhaps your confessor or spiritual advisor.

Excellent response and straight to the point.

Joel

 

[headman13]

metal1633:

If the Bread is physically present and Christ is Spiritually present then how is that a REAL presence? The Church teachs that the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially present. `This presence is called “real”…because it is presence in the fullest sense:

In Consubstantiation only the plain BREAD is physically present.

As a Lutheran Pastor, let me assure you that that is not the Doctrine of Consubstantiation. The Augsburg Confession (Article X) says “The Sacrament of the Altar is the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and drink, instituted by Christ Himself. Of the Holy Supper they teach that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present and are truly distributed with the bread and wine to those who eat in the Supper of the Lord and they reject those who teach otherwise.” In the Formula of Concord, " We believe that in the Holy Supper the Body and Blood of Christ are truly and essentially present and are truly distributed with the bread and the wine. We believe the words of the testament of Christ are not to be understood otherwise than they are read."

What you cite is the CALVINIST doctrine of a mere spiritual presence. That however is not Consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is best likened to a piece of iron heated up in a fire, the iron remains and the fire infuses it. At least Calvinists believe in a “real presence of the spiritual Christ”. That’s better than nothing like the Zwinglians, Baptists, etc, who only believe it’s only a memorial meal, nothing but grapejuice and crackers, an ordinance, not a Sacrament at all. Lutherans believe, teach and confess that “according to the words of institution the reception of Christ’s Body and Blood with the mouth is true and real.”

The Doctrine of Consubstantiation as taught in the Lutheran Confessions is an attempt to reconcile the words of Jesus that the Bread and Wine are indeed His sacred Body and precious Blood and the words of Paul ( 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 1 Corinthians 11:27,28) where Paul says that the consecrated bread remains: “The Bread that we break, is it not the Body of Christ” and “So let a man eat of the bread…” The Aristotelian argument that only the “visus et gustus corporeus”-- the external appearance and taste-- remain, is by comparison a “sophistical subtlety”. Seems to me all this scholastic woolgathering and sophistry over the mode of the “Real Presence” generates a lot more heat than light. Why not just accept the gracious gift?

I personally believe that Jesus can do whatever He wants to do whenever He wants to. Along with Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth I of England, I say “Whatever Jesus meant when He said it, is what I mean when I receive it.”

 

[Matt16_18]

headman13:

Consubstantiation is best likened to a piece of iron heated up in a fire, the iron remains and the fire infuses it.

OK, the Lutherans believe that the Eucharist is true God and true bread. That is still heresy, and it is this heresy that forced the Catholic Church to define the doctrine of transubstantiation.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

headman13:

The Doctrine of Consubstantiation as taught in the Lutheran Confessions is an attempt to reconcile the words of Jesus that the Bread and Wine are indeed His sacred Body and precious Blood and the words of Paul ( 1 Corinthians 10:16 and 1 Corinthians 11:27,28) where Paul says that the consecrated bread remains: “The Bread that we break, is it not the Body of Christ” and “So let a man eat of the bread…” "

Good, I wanted to understand Consubstantiation better. Maybe everyone else here will benefit from your explanation.

In trying to keep this on the topic of the original post, I’ll offer another challenge to Consubstantiation. But first, on the Scripture you quoted, I Cor. 10:16, I have checked out 4 translations (KJV, NAS, NIV, and Catholic NAB) and none of them say what you quoted “The Bread that we break, is it not the Body of Christ” rather, they say “The bread which we break, is it not a SHARING in the body of Christ” or “COMMUNION” or “PARTICIPATION”. Are you sure about your quote?

The challenge - I thought this would be a good argument against Transubstantiation myself, but when I pressed my Catholic friend about it, he turned it right around on me. In I Corinthians, Paul refers to what we are discussing as “the bread” even after it is “consecrated”. So is that an argument against Transubstantiation, or an argument for Consubstantiation, or for the Reformed view? Well, look further, or back, to John 6:33, where Christ says “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” and verse 35 “I am the bread of life.” Now, this super literal take on it does sound strange to me still, but I think it’s helpful to read
I Cor. 10:14-17 with a view to what Christ said. Note, there is “one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the ONE BREAD.” How can we partake of the one bread? Well, we are many, but we are one body, and the one bread we partake of is Christ. Well, perhaps not me since I’m not Catholic, but if that changes so will my Forum name!

How can we all partake of one bread? Is it like there was one sacrifice (no need to tangent off towards Sacrifice of Mass here), -or- is it like there is one altar which the Jews share of the sacrifices from? Well, there are many altars, many sacrifices on those many altars. But as there are many churches, there is one BREAD, and that is the one BODY of Christ. The Apostle Paul is using the terminology of Christ and speaking of Christ to make their eyes of flesh, seeing the bread, submit under the rule of the eyes of faith, and “see” Christ.

 

[headman13]

Matt16_18:

OK, the Lutherans believe that the Eucharist is true God and true bread. That is still heresy, and it is this heresy that forced the Catholic Church to define the doctrine of transubstantiation.

I’m sorry to disagree with you, but that is not an accurate statement of the fact. Transubstantiation was defined by the Fourth Lateran Council in AD 1215, that is 300 years before the Reformation.

 

[headman13]

Reformed Rob:

Good, I wanted to understand Consubstantiation better. Maybe everyone else here will benefit from your explanation.

In trying to keep this on the topic of the original post, I’ll offer another challenge to Consubstantiation. But first, on the Scripture you quoted, I Cor. 10:16, I have checked out 4 translations (KJV, NAS, NIV, and Catholic NAB) and none of them say what you quoted “The Bread that we break, is it not the Body of Christ” rather, they say “The bread which we break, is it not a SHARING in the body of Christ” or “COMMUNION” or “PARTICIPATION”. Are you sure about your quote?

The challenge - I thought this would be a good argument against Transubstantiation myself, but when I pressed my Catholic friend about it, he turned it right around on me. In I Corinthians, Paul refers to what we are discussing as “the bread” even after it is “consecrated”. So is that an argument against Transubstantiation, or an argument for Consubstantiation, or for the Reformed view? Well, look further, or back, to John 6:33, where Christ says “For the bread of God is that which comes down out of heaven, and gives life to the world.” and verse 35 “I am the bread of life.” Now, this super literal take on it does sound strange to me still, but I think it’s helpful to read
I Cor. 10:14-17 with a view to what Christ said. Note, there is “one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the ONE BREAD.” How can we partake of the one bread? Well, we are many, but we are one body, and the one bread we partake of is Christ. Well, perhaps not me since I’m not Catholic, but if that changes so will my Forum name!

How can we all partake of one bread? Is it like there was one sacrifice (no need to tangent off towards Sacrifice of Mass here), -or- is it like there is one altar which the Jews share of the sacrifices from? Well, there are many altars, many sacrifices on those many altars. But as there are many churches, there is one BREAD, and that is the one BODY of Christ. The Apostle Paul is using the terminology of Christ and speaking of Christ to make their eyes of flesh, seeing the bread, submit under the rule of the eyes of faith, and “see” Christ.

I was looking at the Latin and German, My NIV for 1 Corinthians 10:16c does say “And is not the bread that we break a participation in the Body of Christ?” Bread and Body together, that seems pretty clear. The Caparnaum passage from John 6 is often used to support the Real Presence in the Sacrament, I don’t think it obviates either Trans- or Con-substantiation, since both believe the true Body is really present. HOW that eating was to be accomplished was not clear to the hearers [remember they draw back in horror at the thought of eating flesh and drinking blood] It was not clear how that would be accomplished until the Upper Room when Jesus breaks the bread and gives them the cup, saying “This is My Body/This is My Blood of the New Covenant” And they only understood that after the Resurrection. Remember the Emmaus story “He was known to them in the Breaking of the Bread”

It is interesting that the Caparnaum Passage about Body and Blood is in John’s gospel, because St. John is the only one of the four Holy Evangelists who does not report our Lord’s Words of Institution or have Him instituting the Lord’s Supper in his gospel. St. John reports the New Commandment “Love one Another as I have loved you” in the Upper Room. The Commandment to wash one another’s feet is given very clearly in the Upper Room in John, but not the Lord’s Supper.