Did Irenaeus teach Consubstantiation?

[brb3]

I have yet to read a satisfactory explanation of the Eucharist…it probably has been written, so I’m still searching …

A year ago I took Christ at his word …his real Presence, yet even that proposal was roundly deemed errant by some liberal Catholics here, who claim themselves the experts

 

[JonNC]

Not all reject it. But, OK, make it "the formula for consubstantiation is that Jesus is present “‘in, with, and under the bread/wine.’”

Find me a Lutheran theologian who confesses it. Consubstantiation is a metaphysical construct, as is transubstantiation. It is this that the Lutheran Reformers rejected. “In with and under” is a term related to the Sacramental Union, not consubstantiation.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

In, with , under ??? That’s a mixture of Trans & Con …a hybridization view by Luther !!

No, its not. Luther rejected both, as he rejected Aristotilean constructs.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html

Jon

 

[Evan]

Who first came up with this explanation ? St Thomas …or anther ?

This thinking came out of the school of though called Scholasticism. St Thomas was a proponant, but you also find the great Mystics (St John of the Cross and St Teresa of Avila) using terminology from Scholasticism.

I don’t know who came up with it, but I think it was an attempt to unify the Philosophy of Aristotle (The Philosopher) and the thinking of the ECF’s.

I could be out to lunch on this one though.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Find me a Lutheran theologian who confesses it. Consubstantiation is a metaphysical construct, as is transubstantiation. It is this that the Lutheran Reformers rejected. “In with and under” is a term related to the Sacramental Union, not consubstantiation.

Jon

Yes, I understand the evil pretentions of human reason (to actually know truth!), that wicked arm of the flesh, and its vile offspring metaphysics.

Over the years I have talked to some Lutheran pastors who have used the term “consubstantiation” (perhaps to explain their position to me, an RC); and certainly summaries of the state of Lutheran studies indicate that most Lutheran theologians don’t use it; but they do not say “all.”

Right, “’In with and under’ is a term related to the Sacramental Union.” And it fits what brb3 claims Irenaeus was affirming . . . call it what you will.

The Catholic view can also be explained without resorting to mendacious metaphysical musings: in the sacrament all that remains of the bread and wine after the consecration is the appearances–the sacrament is in reality the whole glorified and risen Christ present under the appearances of bread and wine. He is not “in” or “with” the bread because it is not bread: it is Him, under the appearances of bread. “Under” by itself could be used in RC doctrine as in “under the appearances of bread.”

The above view is not the Lutheran view, the relative merits of which I am not debating here. But one doesn’t have to philosophize themselves too far down the path to perdition to see that “con” means “with” and “substantia” means “substance, nature, reality.” Christ “in” and “with” what is still bread can legitimately be called “consubstantiation” despite the fact that the term is eschewed by most Lutheran theologians.

I am open to the possibility that differences in the theology of the sacarament are in many places mainly a matter of words. When RCs say “consubstantiation” re some theologies of the Eucharist they are not implying cannibalism any more than when they say “transsubstantiation.”

 

[Nita]

Well, wouldn’t of been better to say ONE reality ? Can’t we see how some could perceive that two equal partners remain after blessing, physical bread & spiritual bread ?

No, it would not be better since there are TWO realities in the Eucharist:

1. the “substance” of Our Lord (spiritual; His material accidents of His body are not manifested)
2. the “accidents” of bread (fleshly - perceptible to our senses; eg. sight, taste, texture,…)

Both the substance of Our Lord’s body and the accidents of bread are present in the consecrated host.

 

[JimG]

Yes, I understand the evil pretentions of human reason (to actually know truth!), that wicked arm of the flesh, and its vile offspring metaphysics.

Over the years I have talked to some Lutheran pastors who have used the term “consubstantiation” (perhaps to explain their position to me, an RC); and certainly summaries of the state of Lutheran studies indicate that most Lutheran theologians don’t use it; but they do not say “all.”

Right, “’In with and under’ is a term related to the Sacramental Union.” And it fits what brb3 claims Irenaeus was affirming . . . call it what you will.

The Catholic view can also be explained without resorting to mendacious metaphysical musings: in the sacrament all that remains of the bread and wine after the consecration is the appearances–the sacrament is in reality the whole risen Christ present under the appearances of bread and wine. He is not “in” or “with” the bread because it is not bread: it is Him, under the appearances of bread. “Under” by itself could be used in RC doctrine as in “under the appearances of bread.”
The above view is not the Lutheran view, the relative merits of which I am not debating here. But one doesn’t have to philosophize themselves too far down the path to perdition to see that “con” means “with” and “substantia” means “substance, nature, reality.” Christ “in” and “with” what is still bread can legitimately be called “consubstantiation” despite the fact that the term is eschewed by most Lutheran theologians.

I think the bolded part is a good explanation of Catholic teaching. It’s also metaphysics. There’s noting evil about metaphysics.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I think the bolded part is a good explanation of Catholic teaching. It’s also metaphysics. There’s noting evil about metaphysics.

Thank you. But the part you highlighted is no more metaphysical than Lutheran attempts. It just doesn’t use words from Aristotle and Aquinas–that would after all be Catholic.

Re metaphysics I was just pointing up the Reformation’s aversion to philosophy and its pessimistic view of the range of reason.

I’m with Aquinas: the natural light of reason can know truth and its discoveries can be used to understand divine revelation more deeply; and that this process yields results that can validly be used in the formulation of doctrine, especially in the face of heresy. Even Augustine affirmed and did this.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, I think the point of the Irenaeus quote is that the bread becomes completely Christ and completely not bread, and that it’s Christ Who is both completely earthly and completely heavenly.

 

[brb3]

Actually, I think the point of the Irenaeus quote is that the bread becomes completely Christ and completely not bread, and that it’s Christ Who is both completely earthly and completely heavenly.

Hey… I think you’re onto the truth, of what Irenaeus is saying …at long last !!!

The Earthly Bread …when blessed, becomes Eucharist…the REAL PRESENCE… which is BOTH the earthly Son of Man ( son of Adam …that died on Cross, giving his flesh & blood for us) AND, the Son of God ( born of HS) with his SUPERNATURAL SOUL and DIVINITY.

Not, that Christ is divisible into two parts …but the two parental lineages (divine & human) …gave us the unified God-man (soul, divinity, body, blood —TRUE PRESENCE)

Am I reading U and Irenaeus right ?

 

[brb3]

“Just as bread that comes from the earth, after God’s blessing has been invoked upon it, is no longer ordinary bread, but Eucharist, formed of two things, one earthly and the other heavenly: so too our bodies, which partake of the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, but possess the hope of resurrection.” …AGAINST HAERESIES 4, 18, 4-5

Here again is quote for reference … this has to be his point !!

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

Actually, I think the point of the Irenaeus quote is that the bread becomes completely Christ and completely not bread, and that it’s Christ Who is both completely earthly and completely heavenly.
brb3;10360556:

Hey… I think you’re onto the truth, of what Irenaeus is saying …at long last !!!

The Earthly Bread …when blessed, becomes Eucharist…the REAL PRESENCE… which is BOTH the earthly Son of Man ( son of Adam …that died on Cross, giving his flesh & blood for us) AND, the Son of God ( born of HS) with his SUPERNATURAL SOUL and DIVINITY.

Not, that Christ is divisible into two parts …but the two parental lineages (divine & human) …gave us the unified God-man (soul, divinity, body, blood —TRUE PRESENCE)

Am I reading U and Irenaeus right ?

I tend to agree with you here both that Irenaeus may have had this angle on it in mind, and that it is consistent with the RC doctrine of the Eucharist. I would clarify, though, that the transformation is not so complete that the appearances and physical properties of bread and wine do not remain. And also add that “soul” is a part of His humanity, not divinity.

I think this angle is especially likely given the context of Irenaeus’ dispute with gnosticism in Adversus Haereses.

 

[Aloysium]

the bottom line seems to be:

what appears to be bread and wine,
through our senses, directly and using methods that extend them,
what It is,
is the body and blood of Christ
to touch the Host is to touch Jesus
in eating His body, we make It a part of us

 

[brb3]

I tend to agree with you here both that Irenaeus may have had this angle on it in mind, and that it is consistent with the RC doctrine of the Eucharist. I would clarify, though, that the transformation is not so complete that the appearances and physical properties of bread and wine do not remain. And also add that “soul” is a part of His humanity, not divinity.

I think this angle is especially likely given the context of Irenaeus’ dispute with gnosticism in Adversus Haereses.

Yes …I think … was the idea in Irenaeus’s mind ! Such a beautiful thought, from the Godfather of our Church !!

But, I wish to hear back from Mintaka – since he/she first gave an answer that suggested this interpretation.

 

[JimG]

the bottom line seems to be:

what appears to be bread and wine,
through our senses, directly and using methods that extend them,
what It is,
is the body and blood of Christ
to touch the Host is to touch Jesus
in eating His body, we make It a part of us

I would quibble only a little. Since the appearances of bread and wine do not inhere in Jesus, to touch the host is not really to touch Jesus; it is to touch the appearance of bread under which he is present in his entirety!

 

[brb3]

the bottom line seems to be:

what appears to be bread and wine,
through our senses, directly and using methods that extend them,
what It is,
is the body and blood of Christ
to touch the Host is to touch Jesus
in eating His body, we make It a part of us

Well, here is where the mystery is hard to explain/express, from human language. I’ve yet to read a specific, graphic description that seems to encompass the Real Presence.

Personally, I think we always come up short in describing. It will probably always elude us and our attempts to. Christ told us what the Eucharist was …but, not how it happened.

If we could rationally explain …its no longer a mystery. But, our Mass tells us it is a mystery !!

 

[JonNC]

=Fr of Jazz;10360287]Yes, I understand the evil pretentions of human reason (to actually know truth!), that wicked arm of the flesh, and its vile offspring metaphysics.

Over the years I have talked to some Lutheran pastors who have used the term “consubstantiation” (perhaps to explain their position to me, an RC); and certainly summaries of the state of Lutheran studies indicate that most Lutheran theologians don’t use it; but they do not say “all.”

Right, “’In with and under’ is a term related to the Sacramental Union.” And it fits what brb3 claims Irenaeus was affirming . . . call it what you will.

I don’t believe Irenaeus was affirming consubstantiation, myself. Consubstantiation, and Transubstantiation for that matter, are later. I am reluctant to use early Church Fathers to support or deny later positions, either for or against.

The Catholic view can also be explained without resorting to mendacious metaphysical musings: in the sacrament all that remains of the bread and wine after the consecration is the appearances–the sacrament is in reality the whole glorified and risen Christ present under the appearances of bread and wine. He is not “in” or “with” the bread because it is not bread: it is Him, under the appearances of bread. “Under” by itself could be used in RC doctrine as in “under the appearances of bread.”

The use of the term “with” was never intended to be anymore than “is”. Throughout the confessions, when “in and under” (usual), or “in, with and under” (once), there is always the statment that it is His body and blood. And Lutherans would never deny that there is certainly a change.

The above view is not the Lutheran view, the relative merits of which I am not debating here. But one doesn’t have to philosophize themselves too far down the path to perdition to see that “con” means “with” and “substantia” means “substance, nature, reality.” Christ “in” and “with” what is still bread can legitimately be called “consubstantiation” despite the fact that the term is eschewed by most Lutheran theologians.

the term is eschewed because the philosophy is. The reason that Lutheran pastor probably used the term is because, I suspect, he knew that you were Catholic, as you said, and he knows you think in terms of the metaphysics.
Now, I personally have no problem with that, mainly because the evidence I see from Catholic theologians is that they don’t particularly see a Church-dividing difference.

Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.
In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.
The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.
**The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. **The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

And if pushed to speak of the RP in terms of metaphysics, I see Transub. more scriptural than consub. Christ did not say “this is my body mixed with bread”, etc.

I am open to the possibility that differences in the theology of the sacarament are in many places mainly a matter of words. When RCs say “consubstantiation” re some theologies of the Eucharist they are not implying cannibalism any more than when they say “transsubstantiation.”

Agreed.

Jon

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I don’t believe Irenaeus was affirming consubstantiation, myself. Consubstantiation, and Transubstantiation for that matter, are later. I am reluctant to use early Church Fathers to support or deny later positions, either for or against.

The use of the term “with” was never intended to be anymore than “is”. Throughout the confessions, when “in and under” (usual), or “in, with and under” (once), there is always the statment that it is His body and blood. And Lutherans would never deny that there is certainly a change.

the term is eschewed because the philosophy is. The reason that Lutheran pastor probably used the term is because, I suspect, he knew that you were Catholic, as you said, and he knows you think in terms of the metaphysics.
Now, I personally have no problem with that, mainly because the evidence I see from Catholic theologians is that they don’t particularly see a Church-dividing difference.

prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

And if pushed to speak of the RP in terms of metaphysics, I see Transub. more scriptural than consub. Christ did not say “this is my body mixed with bread”, etc.

Agreed.

Jon

Thanks. This is encouraging!

And I think it is important to understand that in theology in the Catholic pale, philosophical truths are used to interpret and explore revealed truth, not attempt to prove or contain them. This is especially true regarding the Eucharist.

All the best.