Is Consubstantiation Legitimate?

[Monergistic]

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.

What is substance, then, when you either excise or completely change the description of accidents in relation to it?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Whatever you want to term it, I believe with St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Pope St. Gelasius, and many other authorities of the early and patristic Church that the Holy Gifts, after the appropriate prayers (including the Epiclesis) are said, become both a heavenly and an earthly reality; bread and wine, AND the body and blood of Christ, just as Christ was both truly God and truly man.

Some Orthodox also embrace the term “transubstantiation,” as evidence in the Orthodox synod at Jerusalem in 1672:*So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present … being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. (6.17e)

Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord. (6.17h)*There are also Orthodox catechisms and sites that use the term. For example:
*Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church (p 53-54)
“Q. What is the name of the change which took place at the Mystic Supper, does it take place now, and by what power? A. Transubstantiation, and it takes place now also by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Bishops and Priests.”

A Catechetical Handbook of the Eastern Orthodox Church (#372)
The Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church by Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-47) (#107)
Answer to question 107: “Transubstantiation occurs immediately with these words, and the bread is transubstantiated into the real body of Christ and the wine into the real blood of Christ, with the visible appearances alone remaining…”

Orthodox Wiki entry on Bishop McGuire
“Other areas of agreement between Greek Orthodoxy and the AOC included common acceptance of the dogmatic decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils, the seven Sacraments, the original form of the Nicene Creed, the concept of transubstantiation, the declaration of the Virgin Mary as Mother of God, justification by both faith and good works, and the rejection of predestination.”*

 

[MarcoPolo]

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…

Indeed, I am aware of Luther’s aversion to the term in his Babylonian Captivity, but my point is that elsewhere he had no problem using such Greek terms in other arenas. For example, in his Bondage of the Will:*And there is no place, in which you do not invent something whereby to contradict the Scriptures. At one time, you fly to the interpretations of the Fathers: at another, to absurdities of Reason: and when neither of these will serve your turn, you dwell on that which is irrelevant or contingent: yet with an especial care, that you are not caught by the passage immediately in point. But what shall I call you? Proteus is not half a Proteus compared with you! Yet after all you cannot get off. What victories did the Arians boast of, because these syllables and letters, homoousios, were not to be found in the Scriptures? Considering it nothing to the purpose, that the same thing could be most effectually proved in other words.*Unless I am reading that wrong, it seems here he is denying that the Arians could really boast of victory just because the syllables and letters for homoousios (same substance in Greek) were not in Scripture. And he justifies the use of the term because it is sufficient to describe the doctrine. And likewise, if he should have adopted the term substantialiter to describe the Eucharist, as quoted way above, then I think there is possible inconsistency in his demands, no?

 

[MarcoPolo]

What is substance, then, when you either excise or completely change the description of accidents in relation to it?

I am not sure what this question is asking.

 

[benjohnson]

The problem is, you really don’t. Granted, you may not use Aristotelian metaphysics, but you use philosophical language to try and explain it anyway.

Yes! We do attempt to use our insufficient human words to indicate what we think is going on. I’ve even used the Catholic definition of transubstantiation to help my children begin to understand.

But here’s the important distinction… we don’t (or at least we’re not supposed to) bind the mystery of the eucharist to our rather poor definitions.

 

[Monergistic]

I am not sure what this question is asking.

Luther did talk about substance, but he dispensed with accidents in the process. Doesn’t that alter the idea of what substance is, when the idea of accidents in relation to it is done away with or completely changed?

I’m suggesting that this is one of those times when Luther used the same word as you but it meant something different. I’m also suggesting that this is a pretty familiar place to be when comparing Lutheran and Catholic doctrine and thought.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Luther did talk about substance, but he dispensed with accidents in the process. Doesn’t that alter the idea of what substance is, when the idea of accidents in relation to it is done away with or completely changed?

I’m suggesting that this is one of those times when Luther used the same word as you but it meant something different. I’m also suggesting that this is a pretty familiar place to be when comparing Lutheran and Catholic doctrine and thought.

I see. Well, look at it this way - let’s say for a moment he was using the term substance differently than Catholics do. That only fortifies the fact that such extra-biblical philosophical language (even if not precisely Greek philosophy) is not off limits when trying to help the faithful understand a doctrine.

 

[PJM]

=CatholicofAgora;10638051]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?

There is BUT

One God

One Christ

One CORRECT Term: Transubstanuation

ANYTHING and everything else is I believe a hersey.

From Father Hardon’s CATHOLIC Dictionary:

“CONSUBSTANTIATION. The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation”

AMEN!

 

[steido01]

With respect to Father Hardon, his definition is a bit confused…

Sacramental Union* is not *Consubstantiation.

Maybe this will help: stand-firm.blogspot.com/2012/06/lutheran-view-on-consubstantiation-and.html

 

[JonNC]

There is BUT

One God

One Christ

One CORRECT Term: Transubstanuation

ANYTHING and everything else is I believe a hersey.

From Father Hardon’s CATHOLIC Dictionary:

“CONSUBSTANTIATION. The belief, contrary to Catholic doctrine, that in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ coexist with the bread and wine after the Consecration of the Mass. John Wyclif (1324-84) and Martin Luther (1483-1546) professed consubstantiation because they denied transubstantiation”

AMEN!

So, Pat, Father Hardon’s claim is that be not professing one thing, one is professing another, either if that person claims not to?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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

Yes. Melanchthon uses the term substantial in his defense of the real presence in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. That is to say, His presence is not merely a spiritual one. We receive Christ not only spiritually by faith, but also orally by the mouth.

…we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.

continued

 

[JonNC]

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:

Now, what is the Sacrament of the Altar?
Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 9] And as we have said of Baptism that it is not simple water, so here also we say the Sacrament is bread and wine, but not mere bread and wine, such as are ordinarily served at the table, but bread and wine comprehended in, and connected with, the Word of God.

10]** It is the Word (I say) which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called, the body and blood of Christ**. For it is said: Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit sacramentum. If the Word be joined to the element, it becomes a Sacrament. This saying of St. Augustine is so properly and so well put that he has scarcely said anything better. The Word must make a Sacrament of the element, else it remains a mere element.

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

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;10643374]So, Pat, Father Hardon’s claim is that be not professing one thing, one is professing another, either if that person claims not to?

Jon

Hi Jon

Reread it.

What father is saying is that there is NO “co-existence” but a COMPLETE and TOTAL change. What was mere “bread and wine” has NOW become the very Real: Body; Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Amen:thumbsup:

That is what Christ proclaimed, and what we catholics believe for the simple fact that it is the singular truth.

God Bless you my FRIEND!

Pat

 

[JonNC]

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.

Additionally, transubstantiation does not remove, nor does it attempt to remove “the mystery of how it happens.” It is not a mechanical explanation, nor a physical explanation. It is a term signifying that what was once bread is now ontologically his body. Thus, we too, assert that we take Christ at his word.

We both assert that we take Christ at His word. We both assert that it is His true body and blood. So, what is the difference We use different means to express this reality of the faith we share.
What do our sense tell us? we are eating and drinking bread and wine. What do we know by faith? We are eating and drinking His body and blood, given and shed for the remission of sins. How do we know? He said so.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.”

The problem is, you really don’t. Granted, you may not use Aristotelian metaphysics, but you use philosophical language to try and explain it anyway. Does Jesus say anything about being “in, with, and under” the elements in the passage you cited? Lutherans accuse Catholics and Calvinists of trying to rationalize the real presence yet appeal to the communication of attributes as well as an extraordinary mode of presence to explain and rationalize the Lutheran version of the real presence. You don’t believe that a loaf of bread was celebrating the Passover nor do you believe that there was a human body lying on the table when Jesus said this is my body. So you dont take it literally. Its just as metaphysical and explained.

Hermann Sasse:

It is impossible to define Luther’s doctrine as consubstantiation. Even the words ‘in the bread’, ‘with the bread’, ‘under the bread’, or ‘in, with, and under the bread’, were never regarded by Luther as more than attempts to express in these old, popular terms inherited from the Middle Ages the great mystery that the bread is the body, the wine is the blood, as the Words of Institution say. [This is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, (Adelaide, South Australia: Openbook Publishers, 1959) 129.]

The bread is the body, the wine is the blood.

Jon

 

[MarcoPolo]

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.

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.

 

[PJM]

=JonNC;10643530]Hermann Sasse:

The bread is the body, the wine is the blood.

Jon

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

 

[Schism_hater]

Some Orthodox also embrace the term “transubstantiation,” as evidence in the Orthodox synod at Jerusalem in 1672:So that though there may be many celebrations in the world at one and the same hour, there are not many Christs, or Bodies of Christ, but it is one and the same Christ that is truly and really present … being changed and transubstantiated, becometh, and is, after consecration, one and the same with That in the Heavens. (6.17e)

Further, we believe that by the word “transubstantiation” the manner is not explained, by which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, — for that is altogether incomprehensible and impossible, except by God Himself, and those who imagine to do so are involved in ignorance and impiety, — but that the bread and the wine are after the consecration, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, nor by the communication or the presence of the Divinity alone of the Only-begotten, transmuted into the Body and Blood of the Lord. (6.17h)There are also Orthodox catechisms and sites that use the term. For example:
Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church (p 53-54)
“Q. What is the name of the change which took place at the Mystic Supper, does it take place now, and by what power? A. Transubstantiation, and it takes place now also by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Bishops and Priests.”

A Catechetical Handbook of the Eastern Orthodox Church (#372)
The Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church by Peter Mohila, Metropolitan of Kiev (1633-47) (#107)
Answer to question 107: “Transubstantiation occurs immediately with these words, and the bread is transubstantiated into the real body of Christ and the wine into the real blood of Christ, with the visible appearances alone remaining…”

Orthodox Wiki entry on Bishop McGuire
“Other areas of agreement between Greek Orthodoxy and the AOC included common acceptance of the dogmatic decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils, the seven Sacraments, the original form of the Nicene Creed, the concept of transubstantiation, the declaration of the Virgin Mary as Mother of God, justification by both faith and good works, and the rejection of predestination.”

You should know, if you do not, that the Synod of Jerusalem and Moghila’s catechism are not held in generally high regard among the Orthodox. There are plenty of other cathechisms that better represent Orthdoox teaching.

For the record, I don’t, and most Orthodox don’t, ahev a problem with the term “transubstatiation” per se. Literally, it just means “change of substance” and as such is equivalent to the more common Orthodox term “metaousia”. There is a change of substance in the Gifts. What is rejected is the idea that the “substance” of the bread and wine is annihilated.

 

[MarcoPolo]

What is rejected is the idea that the “substance” of the bread and wine is annihilated.

Do you know off-hand any Orthodox sources that articulate that sentiment?

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon

Reread it.

What father is saying is that there is NO “co-existence” but a COMPLETE and TOTAL change. What was mere “bread and wine” has NOW become the very Real: Body; Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Amen:thumbsup:

That is what Christ proclaimed, and what we catholics believe for the simple fact that it is the singular truth.

God Bless you my FRIEND!

Pat

Hi Pat,
His blessing with you, as well. We agree, that mere bread and wine, by His words spoken by the celebrant, and the power of the Holy Spirit, are the very body and blood of Christ, given and shed, for the forgiveness of sins.

Jon