Issue with Consubstantiation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dolphin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dolphin said:
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.
Click to expand...
In no case of “miracle” has there ever been a test done directly after consecration. There is always lots of time passing after miracle appearing until time of testing. So there has been plenty of time to manipulate the “miracle”.
So analytical instruments will see a difference it appears.
Click to expand...
Nope. Because no proper test has ever been done on a “miracle”. Ever! The tests are always done after someone makes a claim of a miracle.
 
Maximian said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that the use, even unnecessary use of EM’s, is an attempt at delegitimizing the Eucharist.
 
Dolphin said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because Jesus is not IN the host. He IS the host, in a manner of speaking. When the priest says the words of consecration, the host becomes Jesus. Look at it this way: in your full nature you are body and spirit. You are not in your body, you are your body. While this is a very bad analogy on my part, I hope you can understand what I’m trying to convey here.

As far as black masses go, yes Jesus goes through a lot of mockery, abuse, etc. Just like he did during His Passion. This shows how much love He has for us, that goes through that abuse, just so those of us who receive Him worthily will get many graces.

Pax
 
Dolphin said:
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?
Click to expand...
There are several articles on Eucharistic Miracles on the Catholic Answers website. I post two of them below. In essence, I think that you are correct. If you take a host you will find the bread molecules. It would take the further miracle to physically show the heart muscle.



I would urge you to look at these and perhaps some of the other articles on Catholic Answers. I hope these will help you.

Pax
 
Why doesn’t Jesus save Himself the pain and jump out of the host before a black mass?
 
Presumably yes.

Luther himself validly confected the Eucharist after he was thrown out from the church.

A precise belief of the celebrant is not needed. He only needs to want to “do what the church does”.
 
Jesus cannot “jump” out of the host because that would make Him a liar. He said “This is my body” but yet if He could jump out, then it would no longer be His body. Again the host becomes His body.

Pax
 
So Jesus willingly subjects Himself to abuse inside the host because He wants us to share in Himself because He loves us?

So even in a modern sense then, Jesus is still laying down His life for His friends.

That’s deep.
 
Last edited:
The difficulty is generally about that new fangled Scholastic theology. (it had only been around for 400 years in the time of Luther) Any use of Aristotelian categories would be problematic, so neither transubstantiation nor consubstantiation addresses the problems that troubled Luther.

We use consubstantial all the time in the Creed. It describes the union of the Son with the Father. This is not the same as the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. That always seems to me like the place to start this discussion, but it never gets me anywhere. Consubstantial means there is a difference of persons but not of substance. The “person” of the bread Is different than the person of Christ, but they are the same substance? That sounds like transubstantiation to me. Like I said, I never get anywhere thinking this way.
 
fredystairs said:
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:
Click to expand...
I have been a Lutheran for over 40 years and I can say I have never seen this in any of our confessional documents, white papers, or teaching. It is not a Lutheran belief. There is a debate on when the host becomes the body and blood of Christ (receptionism vs. consecrationism), but neither of these positions, at least formally, teach that the body and blood of Christ revert to any other state. I think Father Z misunderstands these positions.
 
Dolphin said:
So what exactly would they/you call their Eucharistic teaching theologically? Or how would they/you describe it?
Click to expand...
We call it the sacramental union. We don’t attempt to describe it except to say that the body and blood of Christ is present in, with, and under the bread, which is basically a bunch of prepositions thrown together to say, we don’t know or care how it happens. We believe that it does happen because of Christ’s promise in the Words of Institution and receive it in faith.
 
Dolphin said:
Transub. is completely body and blood with just the appearance of bread and wine but on a molecular level, they do no longer exist.
Click to expand...
It isn’t about molecular level. It is about essence. In other words there isn’t any change of structure of Bread or structure of Wine. However their essence changes and they are hence no longer Bread and Wine.

Eucharistic miracles are miracles- they are very special occasions and they tell us a lot about Eucharist but it isn’t plausible to believe that every Host contains AB Blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

(by the way fact it is AB is quite interesting. I’d guess it would be 0 because 0 can be gifted to anyone 😃 plus since I am 0 it would be pretty cool to have that in common with our Lord 😃 )
 
Yeah I figured it was O also. But perhaps AB is fitting in that AB can take anything and Jesus welcomes all of us no matter if we are the worst sinners or the most pious person to enter into His love.
 
Last edited:
That’s a nice line of thought. I also want to add that AB lacks nothing. 0 has neither A components nor B, but AB has all of them. So that might symbolize also that our Lord and Savior lacks nothing 🙂
 
@Hodos

Sorry for not responding to you sooner. Having relooked at the article and upon further reflection, I think that I was the one who misspoke. I should have said that if it is not received, it was not the body and blood under Lutheran theology. My sincerest apologies.

Thank you for sharing that there is a debate in Lutheran theology about the receptionism and consecrationism. Nice to know.

Pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top