Is Consubstantiation Legitimate?

[JonNC]

I KNEW you held such a position Jon, so was a bit puzzled about your previous post

Perhaps I misunderstood Fr. Hardon’s statement.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I believe the etymology fairly means

con/with
substantial/substance

And Lutherans do say Christ’s presence is “in, with, and under” the bread. I don’t think the term forces a “mixing.”

But like I said earlier, if Lutherans prefer not to use the term for whatever inadequacy, I said, “fair enough.” Similarly, I don’t necessarily want people imposing the term “papist” or whatever on Catholics, even if there is some etymological truth in the term, because there are certain negative connotations or inadequacies associated with the term. And I’m not that much of a jerk, so I try to articulate Lutheran’s aversion to the term for their own belief, and try to quote actual Lutherans or Luther instead.

You are not a jerk at all, Marco. I appreciate your efforts regarding an honest expression of Lutheran teaching, and I try to do the same for Catholics, never for a moment thinking I can express Catholic teaching better than a good Catholic.

Jon

 

[ProVobis]

Lutherans no where teach a mixing, or a co-substantial presence, nor do we teach that the bread and wine mix to make a third element. These are the traditional definitions of consubstantiation.

What Luther says in the Large Catechism is this:

Christ’s words are clear; “This [bread] is my body.” How this bread is His body is a mystery, one He chose not to explain.

Jon

Hmmm. This is one of the sticky points of translations as explained in Omlor’s papers in the late 60’s.

In the Latin, it is “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum” Hoc is neuter and it can’t refer to a previous “Panem” (bread) which is feminine in gender. So that makes whatever the priest is holding Christ’s body, and no longer bread. Otherwise it would be “Haec est enim Corpus Meum” also translated to “For this is my body,” making the English ambiguous. It may be a coincidence but the Latin is the authoritative in this and that’s what Catholics believe.

 

[benjohnson]

“For this is my body,” making the English ambiguous. It may be a coincidence but the Latin is the authoritative in this and that’s what Catholics believe.

This fits with how Lutherans view the what is distributed - the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We sometimes use the terms ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ - but the understanding of the reality is that our Lord is present.

I think Catholic have a similar understanding when they refer to attribute of certain hosts - some have sealed edges for example. And some hosts have less gluten in them. But they’re not referring to Jesus having less gluten.

 

[ProVobis]

This fits with how Lutherans view the what is distributed - the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We sometimes use the terms ‘bread’ and ‘wine’ - but the understanding of the reality is that our Lord is present.

I think Catholic have a similar understanding when they refer to attribute of certain hosts - some have sealed edges for example. And some hosts have less gluten in them. But they’re not referring to Jesus having less gluten.

There are similarities to be sure. Some Catholics even ask to receive both species in order to receive. But they’re also taught that’s not necessary as the Body and Blood of Christ, once consecrated, are inseparable. This should not be a difficult concept to accept as we use expression like “my own flesh and blood” to refer to our blood relatives in the English.

 

[JonNC]

There are similarities to be sure. Some Catholics even ask to receive both species in order to receive. But they’re also taught that’s not necessary as the Body and Blood of Christ, once consecrated, are inseparable. This should not be a difficult concept to accept as we use expression like “my own flesh and blood” to refer to our blood relatives in the English.

The Reformers were not enamored with concomitance, to be sure. But I think the real complaint was the withholding of the chalice from the laity. Their view was that was not in keeping with the command of Christ - to eat and drink. In short, it wasn’t so much what the laity received, but what the Church offered.
Jon

 

[ProVobis]

The Reformers were not enamored with concomitance, to be sure. But I think the real complaint was the withholding of the chalice from the laity. Their view was that was not in keeping with the command of Christ - to eat and drink. In short, it wasn’t so much what the laity received, but what the Church offered.
Jon

Fair point. Perhaps part of the problem is the formula that was and is used. “Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam.” (“May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting.”) It’s not much better in the new formula “Corpus Christi.” I think I can say per Catholic theology it probably might be better as just “Christ” instead of “Body of Christ” even if the Church were to offer both species. Catholics (as I’m sure Lutherans believe too) are also getting (or are co-sharers of) the “Soul and Divinity” of Christ, which is why we receive in the first place. Just looking for some similarities here.

 

[JonNC]

Fair point. Perhaps part of the problem is the formula that was and is used. “Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam.” (“May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting.”) It’s not much better in the new formula “Corpus Christi.” I think I can say per Catholic theology it probably might be better as just “Christ” instead of “Body of Christ” even if the Church were to offer both species. Catholics (as I’m sure Lutherans believe too) are also getting (or are co-sharers of) the “Soul and Divinity” of Christ, which is why we receive in the first place. Just looking for some commonality here.

Generally so. We say, “May the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen and preserve you in the true faith to life everlasting”. Not much difference this, particularly since most Catholic parishes, as I understand it, now offer the chalice to the laity.

Jon

 

[ProVobis]

Generally so. We say, “May the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen and preserve you in the true faith to life everlasting”. Not much difference this, particularly since most Catholic parishes, as I understand it, now offer the chalice to the laity.

Jon

The one Lutheran service I attended last year (memorial to my niece) had the communicants come up and receive by intinction if they so wanted. Many Catholics are open to intinction as well. In fact, the Eastern Churches have already used this method for quite some time.

 

[JonNC]

The one Lutheran service I attended last year (memorial to my niece) had the communicants come up and receive by intinction if they so wanted. Many Catholics are open to intinction as well. In fact, the Eastern Churches have already used this method for quite some time.

I have come to the belief that intinction should be the default distribution of the sacrament for a number of reasons. I despise the little individual cups, for one, and it would reduce the amount of reliquae. I also think people would gave less concerns about the spread of illnesses (though I find that fear way overblown).
Jon

 

[hn160]

I have come to the belief that intinction should be the default distribution of the sacrament for a number of reasons. I despise the little individual cups, for one, and it would reduce the amount of reliquae. I also think people would gave less concerns about the spread of illnesses (though I find that fear way overblown).
Jon

My pastor is trying to wean the congregration off individual cups, about half still use these cups, he would prefer instinction over these glass cups. It would be less work for the altar guild. The church that we belonged to back east used instinction.

 

[spbill]

I don’t have anything particular to add. But I would like to thank those for participating in this thread. It causes me to more deeply ponder what I believe, and the meaning of the Sacrament.