Issue with Consubstantiation

[Dolphin]

What exactly is the issue with Consubstantiation vs Transubstantiation. Obviously I know Consub. means body and blood are present as is the bread and wine. Transub. is completely body and blood with just the appearance of bread and wine but on a molecular level, they do no longer exist.

Why is the importance of the bread and wine no longer existing that makes Transub the truth and not Consub. I know its Catholic vs Lutheran (I think) teaching and I have always been taught and believed Transub and am not doubting it. Just wondering what makes it chiefly important that Transub is the truth and not Consub.

Idk if any of that made sense lol but thanks for any help.

 

[c4csp]

Consubstantiation is that the bread and wine become Jesus spiritually. However, this does not happen anyway because there is no Apostolic succession in the lutheran Church so any eucharistic prayers they invoke would be invalid. Transubstantiation is when the host literally become Jesus’ body and blood. His body and blood are truly present under the appearance of bread and wine. But the substance is Jesus’ body and blood, literally.

 

[Dolphin]

So why did Lutherans have an issue with Transub and have their theological teachings say it is Consub. I guess I’m confused why they would reject Transub but then be fine with Consub which is similar (in that it is still Jesus being present and thus a miracle just with bread and wine also).

Correct me if I’m wrong - but Consub is not the same as saying “communion is symbolic” because that means Jesus isn’t there. But in Consub they believe Jesus is there (as you said He isn’t). So why did Lutherans think Transub was wrong but Consub was right?

 

[fredystairs]

I think that the difference is this. When a Catholic priest says the words of consecration, the whole substance of the bread and wine are changed into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus with inly the appearances remaining.

What the Lutherans believe is that the bread and wine remain with the Body and Blood. And if I recollect correctly, they believe it is only the faith of the recipient that changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood. Any hosts that remain after communion are not the Body and Blood but they remain the bread and wine.

This you can see that the two theologies are different.

Of course, as at least one other poster said, since the Lutheran Church no longer has a valid priesthood, nothing changes - it remains bread and wine.

Pax

 

[truthseeker]

Hello,
Jesus said, “This is my body” “This is my blood”.
Therefore, it is no longer bread and no longer wine, because it “is” Jesus’ Body and Blood

The fact Jesus said this, is why Transubstantiation is the correct interpretation, because He did not say that it was still bread or wine.

 

[Dolphin]

What the Lutherans believe is that the bread and wine remain with the Body and Blood. And if I recollect correctly, they believe it is only the faith of the recipient that changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood. Any hosts that remain after communion are not the Body and Blood but they remain the bread and wine.

This is a rather curious concept. Do you know how they defend this belief biblically?

 

[Maximian]

It’s all about the destruction of the priesthood. Consubstantiation enables you (supposedly) to take communion without the need for a properly ordained priest.

There are movements inside the Church which seem to want to go in this direction; for example the creeping use of extraordinary ministers even when completely unnecessary.

 

[Usige]

I might be making a theological stretch here, but part of it goes to differences in understanding of human nature. In particular the dualistic nature of man.

Man is a unity of body and soul; the physical and spiritual. With transubstantiation, the physical and spiritual realities align with our human nature (i.e. physical and spiritual realities unified). In consubstantiation, the physical and spiritual realities are not united. The spiritual reality “stands beside” the physical and the two realities can later be separated.

I am not certain from Lutheran theology, but I strongly suspect that Luther’s pseudo-gnostic idea of grace might underlie why he rejected transubstantiation. In particular I’m thinking of his belief that grace was like a blanket of snow that lays over the dung heap that is man. In his view man could do nothing towards his salvation and we could not be infused by grace. That could lead him to have issue with the idea that the act of man (i.e. consecration) could in anyway bring about grace via the sacraments. In consubstantiation, Christ could be asked to stand beside the bread and wine, but since it did not physically change there was not inherent capability in the priest to bring about that change.

As I say, that is theological speculation, but mainly how I think about the differences and why transubstantiation is important.

 

[BohemianBrother]

I have the collection of Lutheran confessions sitting on my table right now, and I can assure you there is not a single instance of the term ‘consubstantiation’ in there.

Lutherans don’t use the categories of Aristotelian metaphysics, so they don’t distinguish between substance and accidents at all when defining their doctrine of the Eucharist.

AFAIK, their theology of the Eucharist - called the Sacramental Union - can technically encompass both Transub. and Consub. The famous words used by Luther are that the body is ‘in and under’ the bread. However, since he didn’t actually use this as a metaphysical explanation, it could very well mean “in and under the accidents of bread”.

Catholics deny the Real Presence in the Lutheran Eucharist not because of some theological error surrouding it, but because in their view Lutherans lack a valid ordination (the Sacrament of Holy Orders).

TL,DR Consubstantiation isn’t a Lutheran doctrine.

 

[Hodos]

So why did Lutherans have an issue with Transub and have their theological teachings say it is Consub. I guess I’m confused why they would reject Transub but then be fine with Consub which is similar (in that it is still Jesus being present and thus a miracle just with bread and wine also).

Luther took issue with Scholasticism attempting to go beyond what the Bible teaches to explain the mystery of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Essentially, the Scholastics were attempting to wed Christian theology with Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy. Luther also noted that scripture doesn’t speak in the way about the Eucharist that transubstantiation does. So in scripture you frequently see Paul and others refer to the Eucharist as bread and wine, or the bread and the cup, while affirming the presence of God in the Eucharist. Luther accepted Jesus promise that this IS my body, this IS my blood, as well as Paul’s verbiage. He didn’t feel the need to explain the mystery, but to accept it on faith. Consequently, Lutherans reject both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

Any hosts that remain after communion are not the Body and Blood but they remain the bread and wine.

This is incorrect.

 

[fredystairs]

fredystairs:

Any hosts that remain after communion are not the Body and Blood but they remain the bread and wine.

This is incorrect.

I remember reading this about this many years ago and what stuck in my mind was that Lutherans believed that reception was necessary. If not received, the host reverted to bread. I had to look it up (my memory is not what it used to be) and found the following article:

Lutherans and the Eucharist – The American Catholic

Attached is the following, which I think is germane to the discussion:

Lutherans do not believe that the substance of bread and wine change, transubstantiation. They think that Christ is present together with the bread and wine for as long as Christ is needed to be there, a kind of “consubstantiation”. (Some Lutherans don’t like that term, but I’m not getting into that fight.) That is to say, that for Christ to be present, there must be institution, distribution and reception. If it is not received, Christ isn’t present. Once no longer needed there for reception, Christ is no longer present and there is left merely bread and wine. They believe Christ is truly present, when required for reception, but not in an enduring way. Luther used the image an iron that is heated and then it cools again: the iron and the heat are there together and then only the iron is there.

I will note that the above article does go on to say that Lutherans are changing their view on the issue, to where they believe that the bread remains Christ even if not received:

However, some Lutheran churches are starting to reserve their eucharistic species and even to adore what they reserve, even kneeling outside their eucharistic communion services. An interesting development as they become more “sacramental”.

Pax

 

[fredystairs]

fredystairs:

What the Lutherans believe is that the bread and wine remain with the Body and Blood. And if I recollect correctly, they believe it is only the faith of the recipient that changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood. Any hosts that remain after communion are not the Body and Blood but they remain the bread and wine.

This is a rather curious concept. Do you know how they defend this belief biblically

That I do not know. I found an article on the Catholic Answers website that explains some of the history of consubstantiation, but I do not know if this is the same heresy or if this is something different. As others have pointed out, Lutherans object to the term “consubstantiation.” The article is below:

Consubstantiation | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia

Pax

 

[Wesrock]

I’ve written before, and will write again, that the “wedding” of dogma to Aristotlean philosophy is overstated. Yes, the scholastics attempted to speak to the issue, but as far as dogma goes, all we profess is that the bread and wine truly change to the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ while retaining the appearance of bread and wine. This is a divine miracle. Any attempt at further metaphysical explanation, even if I personally agree with it, goes beyond the dogma of the Church on transubstantiation.

 

[Anicette]

A complicated topic.

Some years ago, a poster, presenting as lutheran seminarist of the Lutheran synod of the Wisconsin (which is different from the average european lutheran, If I understand correctly) argue with me, by saying that consubstantiation is not a lutheran belief.
The article of father Z post by @fredystairs go in this sense: “some lutherans don’t like that term”. So “some lutherans”…

It’s all about the destruction of the priesthood. Consubstantiation enables you (supposedly) to take communion without the need for a properly ordained priest.

That’s a big difference and a big part of the answer of the question of the OP. (emphasis is mine).

Ther others I dig in the others replies and the article is

• the coexistence of substances of bread and wine with the Body and Blood versus the transsubstantiation that is a a change of substance.
• the real presence of the Christ is not permanent
• and need to be instituated, given and receive. If not it only bread and wine.
• lutherans beliefs enable a commemoration of the Lord’s supper rather than a renew of the Lord’s supper and a Calvary Sacrifice.

Transub. is completely body and blood with just the appearance of bread and wine but on a molecular level, they do no longer exist.

Is molecular level is the same thing as substance?

because a person who is intolerant to gluten would still be intolerant with the consecrated host.

Can someone enlight me?

 

[Wesrock]

Catholics do not profess that the molecules change. What it is changes, even if its molecular structure doesn’t, and that is done by a divine miracle.

 

[Dolphin]

So if a Catholic bishop went rogue and consecrated some Lutheran priests, would their Eucharist be real?

 

[Dolphin]

Consequently, Lutherans reject both transubstantiation and consubstantiation.

So what exactly would they/you call their Eucharistic teaching theologically? Or how would they/you describe it?

 

[Dolphin]

hey think that Christ is present together with the bread and wine for as long as Christ is needed to be there, a kind of “consubstantiation”.

I mean - this would be convenient if a host was stolen for a black mass ritual, Jesus would simply not be in the host and it would just be bread because Christ was not needed there. But as I understand it from a Catholic view, Jesus is more or less “trapped” inside the host and cannot leave. But if Jesus is God (which He is) and thus infinite in power, then why cannot he leave the host? I suppose He limits His own power even though others in black masses abuse Him. But its not like the Crucifixion where He could come down but didn’t because it was required for our salvation. Black masses that abuse Jesus are not required for our salvation so why can’t He leave that host?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Transub. is completely body and blood with just the appearance of bread and wine but on a molecular level, they do no longer exist.

Study the bread or wine using any analytical instrument and you will not see any diference on a molecular level after consecration.

 

[Dolphin]

I find this hard to believe because studies were done on the host that bleed (Eucharistic miracle) and it showed human tissue, trauma to the heart of this human at the point of death (Jesus on the cross), and an AB blood type.

So analytical instruments will see a difference it appears. Or was this because it was a Eucharistic miracle different from a consecrated host?