Luther's Consubstantiation .... or Catholicism's Transubstantiation

[ivebeenshown]

The accidents are what we perceive as present … bread and wine. But, they are no longer bread / wine. They are Christ [body/blood/soul/divinity].

I agree… the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine, but the body/blood/soul/divinity of Christ.

A truely TRANSFORMATIVE process has occurred … not just a co-existance of substances. To say/infer otherwise … its to fall back into Luther’s Consubstantiation way of thinking. Namely, that both Christ & bread/wine are present … after consecration. I too, used to believe this … [that Christ resided INSIDE, WITHIN, UNDER the vast areas of empty space of the atom/molecules of bread and wine]. Christ "cloaked’ [within, inside, under] the wine/bread molecules. But, our Church clearly taught against this understanding … in Trent, when they spoke against Luther, and others, who taught this or other similar ideas.

I’m not saying I know how it works, as a scientist might, as I have no lab proof. But, I know alot of what Catholics are saying here doesn’t jive with what Trent says. And, Trent claims it’s revelation on this matter is the FINAL revelation and teaching of the Church on the topic !!!

I don’t think you ‘get it’. First of all, I am not proposing or supporting the hypothesis of consubstantiation.

As stated with the Council of Trent:

“… after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things.”

That is, Christ is substantially present under the physical properties (species) of bread and wine (those sensible things.)

Again, as stated with the Council of Trent:

“Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof.”

So while you say the Church ‘clearly taught against’ the idea that Christ is substantially present ‘under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species’ and ‘under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof’ in the Eucharist, the Council of Trent appears to affirm otherwise.

You need to understand that the ‘species’ or ‘accidents’ are not the same as ‘substance’.

 

[brb3]

So while you say the Church ‘clearly taught against’ the idea that Christ is substantially present ‘under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species’ and ‘under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof’ in the Eucharist, …

:nope: not I

Maybe someone else did. Cite the post # if you can find it …

 

[brb3]

1.) why would the “miracle” at Luciano be any more miraculous than what happens at every Mass?

2.) …So why is Luciano declared “miraculous”?

1.) Because Christ determined the Universal Church needed the ordinary accidents of bread & wine removed … and the ‘consecrated’ Eucharistic flesh & blood revealed, to show forth His Real Presence to that Priest, Parish, Pope …and to us eversince.

2.) Because that 8th century Pope & Church determined it to be so … and all Popes since.

 

[brb3]

1.) You keep trying to propose that Our Lord’s body and blood are present in the Eucharist in a tangible way - physically. Now that is something the Church has never taught. So be careful who you accuse of heresy.

2.) You are the one who keeps trying to make it explicable in a material way - a tangible proof rather than just faith.

:nope:

1.) I say Fully & Substantially … same as Trent did. I don’t recall ever using the word ‘tangibly’ … cite the Post #, if I did.
However, Christ said " This is my [physical] body, given up for you … this is my blood, poured out for man/womankind". And for us to receive it orally as [physical] real food … not just to ponder on the miracle of Transubstantiation, as it relates to His dead and resurrection.

2.) Yes, but only because many Catholics taught me to think of the Eucharist as real food, not just spiritual food for our minds/souls. I also see it in the teaching of Trent.
My original thread question was … “which is more c/w science, Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation ?”

What do you think ans. to that question ?

 

[brb3]

When the Eucharistic species of bread and wine no longer subsist then the Eucharistic presence of Christ no longer endures. When a miracle occurs where the species changes from that of bread and wine into flesh and blood, Jesus’ Eucharistic presence no longer endures.

How do you know this is true ? Define ‘subsist’ for us … denotation & connotation.

 

[brb3]

brb3,

I was under the impression that you only recently learned of Eucharistic miracles. Is there any possibility you might be acting hastily by saying that all the other Catholics are wrong?

So, I guess I somehow missed where ALL OTHER CATHOLICS are singing the same doctrine/dogma/traditions, etc !! What about the Reformed/Modernists, the Traditionalists, those who reject Vatican 2 and its subsequent Popes ?

 

[brb3]

I am speaking of brb3 assertion that flesh type molecules are visible under a microscope.

Where did I assert this, cite post #. I specifically said I ‘had no lab proof, or knowledge of such proof’.

I did say such is the case in Lanciano miracle, which has been tested by the Church. And, also that this is claimed for the South American miracle [video link provided] … but, that I had yet to research this claim.

I did wonder if perhaps Stem Cells, might be present in the Eucharist … much as an Acorn leads to a Tree … Nita’s Analogy, which I like And, I wondered if it were possible the Vatican had ever tested the Eucharist hosts … but, doubted they had, as I don’t think they desired to ‘test God’ in His Sacrament.

 

[brb3]

Brb3 has assserted that at a normal mass, after the host is consecrated, and there is no visible change to the host (i.e no Eucharistic miracle properly so called) that were you take said host and place it under a microscope you would then see, through the power of magnification, flesh type molecules instead of bread type molecules.

:nope: More mischaracterizations of what I posted. You have a vivid, but errant recall

 

[chriscomary]

When God does something, he doesn’t go halfway. Definitely Transubstantiation.

 

[brb3]

I find the RC teaching extrememly confusing on this issue , what I’m not confused about is how I see the Eucharist. I have read so much RC teaching on the Eucharist and I will just believe how I always have. I really believe they lead people to believe the physical aspect of Jesus in the Eucharist .

I’m with you. The Catholics posting here are all over the map, in the way they view Transubstantiation.

Keep in mind however, it’s a small minority here that are disputing Trent’s ‘substance’ language as meaning the ‘physical presence’ of Christ’s body/blood, via Transubstantiation. They all readily admit to His Soul/Divinity, but teach the body/blood only in ‘metaphysical’ terms.

But, my question to them remains …"Why did Christ work the Miracle @ Lanciano " … if not to point up the reality of his actual body/blood in the consecrated hosts ?

 

[brb3]

I never have been able to understand how a person can believe that that their invisible soul is in their own body but that it would be impossible for the substance of Jesus’ body and blood which is also invisible to be in the hosts of the Eucharist?

Bingo

Who are we gonna believe on the matter … Christ, Paul, John ? … Or the doubting Thomas’ ?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Brb3,

I apolgize if i have mischaracterized your oosition. In prior posts i was careful to say that you “hypothesize” rather than assert, and I ought to have continued to do so. Is it fair to say you hypothesize these things?

Ive attempted to be careful – I hope you’ll note that Ive been asking questions in order to discern your points accurately.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So, I guess I somehow missed where ALL OTHER CATHOLICS are singing the same doctrine/dogma/traditions, etc !! What about the Reformed/Modernists, the Traditionalists, those who reject Vatican 2 and its subsequent Popes ?

Hmm. I dont know about modernists, but I would bet that Traditionalists and those who reject Vatican II etc would hold the traditonal and orthodox understanding that the Body of Christ made present by virtue of the sacrament is present in the manner of a substance, that is to say, inaccesible to to senses (by any natural means, including scientific testing), and that He is bodily prsent but not in the way a body is in a place.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’m with you. The Catholics posting here are all over the map, in the way they view Transubstantiation.

Keep in mind however, it’s a small minority here that are disputing Trent’s ‘substance’ language as meaning the ‘physical presence’ of Christ’s body/blood, via Transubstantiation. They all readily admit to His Soul/Divinity, but teach the body/blood only in ‘metaphysical’ terms.

But, my question to them remains …"Why did Christ work the Miracle @ Lanciano " … if not to point up the reality of his actual body/blood in the consecrated hosts ?

I’m not sure who you sre referring to as disputing Trent. . . Certainly not I. If you have time, do an advanced search on my username for “substance” or “transubstantiation” . You’ll find, I think, that I often highlight Christ’s bodily presence in the Eucharist.

For my part in this discussion, my concern (and it is a fraternal concern, I actually care about what you think) is that if you suspect that one could see cells somehow in a normal host, that you may be misunderstanding some aspect of the Churchs teaching on how Christ is present.

Also, I might be wrong about this, but I get a sense that you may think that if someone is engaging you on your understanding of the Eucharist that they are somehow liberal, or moderinist, or unorthodox, or holding a watered down spiritual presence only view and are trying to lead you into error. I suggest you give your interlocutors the benefit of the doubt and entertain the possibility that you might be missing something regarding the orthodox understanding and they might be trying to help clarify it.

VC

 

[brb3]

For my part in this discussion, my concern (and it is a fraternal concern, I actually care about what you think) is that if you suspect that one could see cells somehow in a normal host, that you may be misunderstanding some aspect of the Churchs teaching on how Christ is present.

I’ve a question for you then, …since you have studied this matter extensively, and have great concerns to ‘get the answer right’ … for both yourself and your Catholic brethren.

Upon Consecration of the Eucharist … what body/blood appears & is received by the Catholic: 1.) the crucified, 2.) the resurrected 3.) both

 

[Nita]

:nope:

1.) I say Fully & Substantially … same as Trent did. I don’t recall ever using the word ‘tangibly’ … cite the Post #, if I did.

Reminds of those who deny the teaching of purgatory or the Trinity because the word doesn’t occur in Scripture.

You are the one who put forth the possibility of a pluri-potent cell of Our Lord’s body as the way in which His Body and Blood may be present in the Eucharist. ** A pluri potent cell is a “tangible” substance. ** Only tangible substances can become visible under a microscope.

2.) Yes, but only because many Catholics taught me to think of the Eucharist as real food, not just spiritual food for our minds/souls. I also see it in the teaching of Trent.

What do you mean by real food - food that doesn’t just nourish our minds/souls?? Do you mean that you consider (and think Trent teaches) that Jesus instituted the Eucharist not only as spiritual food but as physical food also — as a means of physically nourishing our physical body with His?. Surely you don’t mean that; but if not, please clarify what you do mean.

My original thread question was … “which is more c/w science, Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation ?”

That question got answered thoroughly by the first response (Post #2) to your original question. Science has nothing to do with either.

What do you think ans. to that question?

I agree with the first response to your questionr; physical science has nothing to do with either. Neither belief can be proved by science because neither transubstantiation or consubstantiation teach a tangible presence of Jesus in the Eucharist.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I’ve a question for you then, …since you have studied this matter extensively, and have great concerns to ‘get the answer right’ … for both yourself and your Catholic brethren.

Upon Consecration of the Eucharist … what body/blood appears & is received by the Catholic: 1.) the crucified, 2.) the resurrected 3.) both

It depends on what you mean.

Without a doubt, we know that if we receive Holy Communion at Mass we receive the whole Christ, including that self-same body which was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified and resurrected.

So, 3.) both is the probably the best answer, with the provision that I don’t know the specific nature of your inquiry, and you might be asking something specific. For instance, another possible answer is 2.) resurrected, if you are asking simply if we receive Christ as He is now, which we do, and He is resurrected.

But, like my signature says, if what I say isnt’t at least consistent with the mind of the Church then reject it, and if I can be shown that it is inonsistent, I too would wholeheartedly cast it aside without regret.

It sounds like you are testing me. Do I pass the test? I’m happy to discuss your recent question (crucified, resurrected, both) in more detail if you’d like, or continue a discussion on the Real Presence in general.

VC

 

[ivebeenshown]

:nope: not I

Maybe someone else did. Cite the post # if you can find it …

In post 169 of this thread, you said:

I too, used to believe this … [that Christ resided INSIDE, WITHIN, UNDER the vast areas of empty space of the atom/molecules of bread and wine]. Christ "cloaked’ [within, inside, under] the wine/bread molecules. But, our Church clearly taught against this understanding … in Trent

Essentially, you are saying that in Trent, the Church taught against the very thing it proclaimed, which was that “after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things.”

In essence, you would fall under the following anathema:

CANON III.-If any one denieth, that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.

In essence, you seem to be saying that Christ is not substantially present under each species (of bread and wine) but that Christ is substantially present under the species of flesh and blood that only appears to be the species of bread and wine.

 

[Nita]

…But, my question to them remains …"Why did Christ work the Miracle @ Lanciano " … if not to point up the reality of his actual body/blood in the consecrated hosts ?

Because some people don’t have enough faith to believe that His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity can be truly, really, sacramentally and substantially present without it also being present tangibly in some way.

 

[Nita]

Originally posted by **Nita
**

That’s what the Catechism says in its paragraph #1377. How do you interpret it? It certainly doesn’t say the Eucharistic presence endures even after the species of bread and wine no longer exist.

Any part of a consecrated host that no longer has the species/accidents of bread and wine no longer contains the “Eucharistic presence of Christ” - even a part as small as a cell. That cell would no longer contain the Eucharistic presence of Jesus.

In miracles such as Lanciano when a consecrated host exhibits instead the species/accidents of flesh and blood, it is no longer a “Eucharistic presence” of Jesus. To my knowledge, the Church has never taught that Jesus is really, truly, and substantially present in consecrated hosts and/or wine that no longer manifest the appearances of bread and wine.

Define ‘subsist’ for us … denotation & connotation

.Sometimes you make it difficult to be charitable.