The 4th Lateran Council condemned this view. It was a view held by the Lollards, as well as Wycliffe. It has wrongly been attributed to Lutherans but they condemn it as well. Some Anglicans hold to it.In other words, do we believe that those who believe that the body and blood of Christ is present “within” or “alongside” Communion are actually participating in the body and blood of Christ? Also, what all denominations/sects believe in Consubstantiation?
No denominations/sects that currently exist hold to this as official doctrine. The Lollards did, but they no longer exist. Lutheran and Anglican teaching rejects it, as does Catholic teaching, but there is the occasional person from any of these three backgrounds that will voice some kind of support for it. Usually, that support is incomplete, misinformed, and based on a poor understanding of substance theory which is admittedly far removed from any relevance to how we really understand the world, so it’s understandable.Also, what all denominations/sects believe in Consubstantiation?
Just a clarification. While consubstantiation is used in thomistic philosophy, it is only used in relation to the Holy Trinity. As an explanation of the Eucharist it is rejected by Thomists and the Magisterium alike.Consubstantiation is in the Thomistic/Aristotelian theological/metaphysical framework. Traditions such as Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and some Anglican traditions, Methodism don’t use the term since they don’t see Transubstantiation and Real Presence as synonymous terms.
I don’t know any modern Christian tradition that sees consubstantiation as a legitimate understanding of the Eucharist/Real Presence.
O+
Depends on who you ask. Here’s what Schaff says:*The Lutheran Church … teaches consubstantiation in the sense of a sacramental conjunction of the two substances effected by the consecration, or a real presence of Christ’s very body and blood in, with, and under (in, cum, et sub) bread and wine. The word consubstantiation, however, is not found in the Lutheran symbols, and is rejected by Lutheran theologians if used in the sense of impanation. (Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 6.2 The Augsburg Confession)*If by consubstantiation is meant the “in, with, under” phrase seen in many Lutheran texts, then of course, it is a fitting term. But fair enough if they prefer not to use the term.Consubstantiation is in the Thomistic/Aristotelian theological/metaphysical framework. Traditions such as Eastern Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, and some Anglican traditions, Methodism don’t use the term since they don’t see Transubstantiation and Real Presence as synonymous terms.
I don’t know any modern Christian tradition that sees consubstantiation as a legitimate understanding of the Eucharist/Real Presence.
O+
Well, of course the Church acknowledges the difference between body and blood. Also She symbolizes sacrifice by consecrating the bread and wine separately, following Christ’s example and using his words regarding his body and then his blood, “shed for you and for many.” But as far as the Real Presence goes you are right that it is the whole, entire resurrected Jesus Christ that is present both under the appearance of bread and the appearance of wine.The Church doesn’t divide the body and blood. One Living God upon consecration.
It depends on who one asks is correct! Schaff, AFAIK, is not Lutheran. It may be his opinion, but he doesn’t set Lutheran teaching. Krauth, in my signature, is a Lutheran.Depends on who you ask. Here’s what Schaff says:The Lutheran Church … teaches consubstantiation in the sense of a sacramental conjunction of the two substances effected by the consecration, or a real presence of Christ’s very body and blood in, with, and under (in, cum, et sub) bread and wine. The word consubstantiation, however, is not found in the Lutheran symbols, and is rejected by Lutheran theologians if used in the sense of impanation. (Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 6.2 The Augsburg Confession)If by consubstantiation is meant the “in, with, under” phrase seen in many Lutheran texts, then of course, it is a fitting term. But fair enough if they prefer not to use the term.
Indeed. Off-hand, I don’t know of a Lutheran who embraces the term consubstantiation. Most of the works I see prefer to use the term “in, with, and under.” Although Luther himself was at least wont to use the term “substance” to describe the real presence:*And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread. What will they [Catholics] reply? Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door [John 20:19, 26] and of the closed mouth of the sepulcher, through which he went in and out without disturbing them. (Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 2.29-30)It depends on who one asks is correct! Schaff, AFAIK, is not Lutheran. It may be his opinion, but he doesn’t set Lutheran teaching. Krauth, in my signature, is a Lutheran.
Jon
Luther rejected the substance theory that provides the underpinnings of transubstantiation. When he talked about substance, it seems like he limited it to pejorative discourse intended to describe inconsistencies in the Catholic thought behind its doctrine. I don’t believe Luther appropriated the term as such for positive arguments of what he believed and taught, as the substance/accidents idea was not something he gave factual weight to. And to the best of my understanding, Lutherans since then have been pretty consistent with that too.Indeed. Off-hand, I don’t know of a Lutheran who embraces the term consubstantiation. Most of the works I see prefer to use the term “in, with, and under.” Although Luther himself was at least wont to use the term “substance” to describe the real presence:And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread. What will they [Catholics] reply? Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door [John 20:19, 26] and of the closed mouth of the sepulcher, through which he went in and out without disturbing them. (Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 2.29-30)
Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, “This is my body,” even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word “this” indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a “sacramental union,” because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union. (Martin Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, Luther’s Works 37 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961], p. 300)
[W]e defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially [substantialiter] present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. (Phillip Melanchthon, friend and contemporary of Martin Luther quoted in his Defense of the Augusburg Confession, Article X)
Links to references here
On what do you base that?I don’t believe Luther appropriated the term as such for positive arguments of what he believed and taught, as the substance/accidents idea was not something he gave factual weight to.
What did Christ actually say? 26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”Indeed. Off-hand, I don’t know of a Lutheran who embraces the term consubstantiation. Most of the works I see prefer to use the term “in, with, and under.” Although Luther himself was at least wont to use the term “substance” to describe the real presence:And why could not Christ include his body in the substance of the bread just as well as in the accidents? In red-hot iron, for instance, the two substances, fire and iron, are so mingled that every part is both iron and fire. Why is it not even more possible that the body of Christ be contained in every part of the substance of the bread. What will they [Catholics] reply? Christ is believed to have been born from the inviolate womb of his mother. Let them say here too that the flesh of the Virgin was meanwhile annihilated, or as they would more aptly say, transubstantiated, so that Christ, after being enfolded in its accidents, finally came forth through the accidents! The same thing will have to be said of the shut door [John 20:19, 26] and of the closed mouth of the sepulcher, through which he went in and out without disturbing them. (Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 2.29-30)
Why then should we not much more say in the Supper, “This is my body,” even though bread and body are two distinct substances, and the word “this” indicates the bread? Here, too, out of two kinds of objects a union has taken place, which I shall call a “sacramental union,” because Christ’s body and the bread are given to us as a sacrament. This is not a natural or personal union, as is the case with God and Christ. It is also perhaps a different union from that which the dove has with the Holy Spirit, and the flame with the angel, but it is also assuredly a sacramental union. (Martin Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper, Luther’s Works 37 [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1961], p. 300)
[W]e defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially [substantialiter] present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. (Phillip Melanchthon, friend and contemporary of Martin Luther quoted in his Defense of the Augusburg Confession, Article X)
Links to references here
Let me take the Catholic side for a moment here. Not in defending transubstantiation, but I notice the critique from Lutherans towards Catholics about transub is usually something along the lines of, “You guys try to explain too much. We just take Jesus at His word.”What did Christ actually say? 26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.”
27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you,
28 for this is my blood of , which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
We take Christ at His Word, for us it is a mystery how it happens. We do not need fancy words to explain it or try to use Greek philosophy to explain it. Besides I do not really care if Catholics do not think that our Holy Communion is valid or not, it is valid in our eyes.
For this reason, I disagree – Lutherans largely accept the Trinitarian teaching of Nicea using homoousious, which is the Greek term meaning same substance. As also indicated above, Luther utilized the term substance on a variety of levels when describing the Eucharist. It is more accurate to say Lutherans are averse to using the term transubstantiation, but it is not accurate to say Lutherans do not make use of Greek philosophy (like “subatance”) when describing doctrines, including, as did Luther, regarding the Eucharist.We take Christ at His Word, for us it is a mystery how it happens. We do not need fancy words to explain it or try to use Greek philosophy to explain it.
Babylonian Captivity of the Church, which someone else linked to at the top of page two if comments here. Page 30, I believe, and right after another quote that’s been cited. Luther says that transubstantiation (a monstrous word) never reared its head until…On what do you base that?