He does not speak of two substances, only of two realities. He does not say that the substances exist together, but that the substance of bread is no longer bread (and, of course, we extend that reasoning to the wine) but Christ. When he speaks of “realities”, he probably intends what later we define as “accidents”.
This. Justin Martyr, who lived while Irenaeus lived and wrote before he did, described the transformation as ‘transmutation’. It is essentially transubstantiation, but it refers to the bread as a whole, and not the substance (it did not define ‘accidents’, just that the bread was now completely Christ). It was a great definition, until the heresy of consubstantiation arose, which required a more precise defining of exactly what occurred during the wonderous mystery.In the erroneous idea of consubstantiation the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine.
In transubstantiation, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ, in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine.
St. Iraeneus actually teaches what would later be properly called transubstantiation:
He does not speak of two substances, only of two realities. He does not say that the substances exist together, but that the substance of bread is no longer bread (and, of course, we extend that reasoning to the wine) but Christ. When he speaks of “realities”, he probably intends what later we define as “accidents”.
Besides, the knowledge of the Eucharist (which was known as “transmutation” before the term “transubstantiation” was formally defined) was so well known to the Church Fathers that Irenaeus could not possibly ignore it or be mistaken about it
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 ?In the erroneous idea of consubstantiation the substance of Christ’s Body exists together with the substance of bread, and in like manner the substance of His Blood together with the substance of wine.
In transubstantiation, the substance of the bread and wine departs in order to make room for the Body and Blood of Christ, in the unchanged appearances of bread and wine.
St. Iraeneus actually teaches what would later be properly called transubstantiation:
He does not speak of two substances, only of two realities. He does not say that the substances exist together, but that the substance of bread is no longer bread (and, of course, we extend that reasoning to the wine) but Christ. When he speaks of “realities”, he probably intends what later we define as “accidents”.
Besides, the knowledge of the Eucharist (which was known as “transmutation” before the term “transubstantiation” was formally defined) was so well known to the Church Fathers that Irenaeus could not possibly ignore it or be mistaken about it
Here’s a few other citations to factor in.
, IV, 17, 5]
No. What we perceive as physical attributes are by definition appearances (i.e. accidents) and in the Eucharist the accidents of bread and wine remain. But the substance of bread and wine does not remain, having been replaced by Jesus in his entirety.
What can I tell you
Maybe it would be worse to say one reality, because then the people, who see bread and wine & taste bread and wine, would assume that is the “reality” inasmuch as the senses are concerned, and they would not be mistaken. Speaking of two “realities” and yet clearly saying that the bread is not bread anymore, sort of gives the correct idea that there are two* real things *before our eyes, the bread and our Lord, and yet the bread is no longer bread - even though to the senses it really looks and tastes like bread.But, we know people with gluten allergies are reacting to bread gluten …not bread gluten ‘appearances’ …thus they are given modified bread host.
Bread gluten is an accident (not appearance) of the bread. the Accidents remain. Just like H20 is an accident of the wine.
Appearances or accidents are defined as any quality which is perceptible to the senses. The sense perceptions of bread and wine remain. By calling them appearances does not mean that they are illusions, but that the sense perceptions remain those of bread and wine even after consecration. Everything that we “perceive” with our senses or react to with our bodies is, philosophically speaking, an accident. Those remain. Thus, we cannot physically distinguish a consecrated from an unconsecrated host.
So, gluten, a chemical substance is present, but the chemical substance of bread wheat is not ???
The chemical substance of bread wheat is present. The chemicals, which can be detected by our senses are accidents, and they remain. What changes is the substance. What the thing is, Christ, is present, but what the thing was, bread, is gone. Only the chemicals, the smells, the appearence remain. Not what it is.
The mystery of it all
It’s indeed a difficult teaching!I don’t think these texts from Irenaeus can be understood to be conveying consubstantiation. The Lutheran formula for consubstantiation is that Jesus is present “in, with, and under the bread/wine.” With consubstatiation you could not say, as Irenaeus did, that he acknowledges the bread to be his body, and the wine to be his blood. IOW, what appears as bread is His body, and what appears to be wine is His blood. In consubstantiation you’d say the body of Christ is in/with/under the bread.
Who first came up with this explanation ? St Thomas …or anther ?
Without meaning to sidetrack the thread, Lutherans reject consubstantiation. See my signature.
Not all reject it. But, OK, make it "the formula for consubstantiation is that Jesus is present “‘in, with, and under the bread/wine.’”
In, with , under ??? That’s a mixture of Trans & Con …a hybridization view by Luther !!