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

[mardukm]

Then, I’ll try to use the Church’s terminology … like Council of Trent language., etc

Just FYI, “metaphysical” does not mean “not physical.” It is not equivalent to “spiritual.” It simply refers to matters that are beyond conventional physical perception. No one here is saying that the Body and Blood of Christ is “merely” spiritual in the Eucharist.

I hope you understand that so you can let go of your claim that those of us who do not agree with what you are stating are being “gnostic.”

Christ’s Real Presence is one of the greatest Mysteries of our Faith. I can’t understand why it is so important for you to denude the Real Presence of its Mystery.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[clmowry]

And the preceeding Chapter 3 would read:

…And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. 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.

And because that Christ our Redeemer, declared that which He offered UNDER THE SPECIES OF BREAD to be HIS OWN BODY, therefore has IT EVER BEEN a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now DECLARE IT ANEW, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the WHOLE SUBSTANCE OF THE BREAD INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE BODY OF CHRIST our Lord, and OF THE WHOLE SUBSTANCE OF THE WINE INTO THE SUBSTANCE OF HIS BLOOD; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church suitably and PROPERLY CALLED TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

Council of Trent, Session 13, Chp. 4

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So,

I think I ought to ask another question in addition to my two above:

1. What molecules will a scientist see and why those? Will he see molecules associated with fat or bone or skin or hair? Will he see those only in the host? Why? Will he see white blood cells? In the host? Only in his sample from the chalice? Why? Molecules associated with nails, eyes, brain? Yes, no, and why?

Thanks for trying to help us u derstand your position,
VC

 

[Philthy]

brb3:

Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity … all present in the Eucharist, per Chruch teaching.

Correct.

So, the body & blood should be accessible to science testing.

Incorrect.

Hmmm - maybe I can be as pithy as clchowry!

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

1.) You really have no way of knowing this … do you ? Since you don’t think the substance can be measured

The means by which we “know” this (whatever that means) is faith.

3.) NO …
the substance of matter [human body/blood], can be objectively detected by scientific means. Its the Soul and Divinity of Christ that falls into the Metaphysical realm … and cannot be measured by scientific means.

Consider this:

• If this were the case, then why would the “miracle” at Luciano be any more miraculous than what happens at every Mass? It wouldn’t, but it is and it is so precisely because a miracle - an observable alteration of physical reality unattributable to the laws of physics - occurred. So why is Luciano declared “miraculous”?
• Furthermore, do you really believe that if the Church taught what you claim is taught, that an anti-Catholic group would not have definitively, scientifically proven the claim to be false? Of course they would! That would once and for all time refute the Magisterium’s claim to infallibility. There is nothing that they would like to do more. But none of them have done that, brb3. Why not? What would stop them?
• Lastly, don’t you think the CC itself would have done so? You speculated that they would not “test the Lord”, but that patently false: did not testing occur at Luciano? It did - how does that square with your prohibition of testing the Lord? It doesn’t. Furthermore, I don’t see it as a test at all - they already have proclaimed it as the truth prior to the advent of the technology that would now prove them right. The CC already believes it and always has - it would not be testing anything, they would be more effectively PROCLAIMING the truth in a manner consistent with what is available and able to reach more unbelievers. But, again, this has not happened brb3. Why is that?

I submit that the answer to each of these is the same: although the metaphysical reality of Christ’s Real Presence - body, blood, soul and divinity - is taught by the Church the Church simply does not teach that this reality is accessible to science. I don’t think this fact detracts one iota from the awesome reality that Catholics accept in the Eucharist…do you?

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

My apologies to clmowry whom I twice incorrectly referred to as clchowry.

 

[Nita]

Quote:
…

No, they are not contradictory.
To speak of something being “physically” present is different from saying that the same thing is present “truly, really, sacramentally, substantially and essentially”.

Analogies always have flaws, but maybe this will give you an idea.
In an acorn, the “physical reality” of an oak tree is “really, truly, substantially and essentially present”.
But, that acorn is not “physically” a tree - a tree is not “physically” present in that acorn (trunk/branches/roots/leaves/sap are not physically present) . When you see, touch that acorn there is nothing about it that is “physically” a tree.

 

[JonNC]

No, they are not contradictory.
To speak of something being “physically” present is different from saying that the same thing is present “truly, really, sacramentally, substantially and essentially”.

Analogies always have flaws, but maybe this will give you an idea.
In an acorn, the “physical reality” of an oak tree is “really, truly, substantially and essentially present”.
But, that acorn is not “physically” a tree - a tree is not “physically” present in that acorn (trunk/branches/roots/leaves/sap are not physically present) . When you see, touch that acorn there is nothing about it that is “physically” a tree.

Nita,
I agree with you here, but have a question. How do we speak, then, about the acorn?

Jon

 

[Nita]

Then, I’ll try to use the Church’s terminology … like Council of Trent language., etc

The Council of Trent was using philosophical (Aristotelian) terminology.

 

[Nita]

Nita,
I agree with you here, but have a question. How do we speak, then, about the acorn?

Jon

I’m not sure what you mean Jon.

As I said, I was using it as an analogy just to give brb some sort of a sense in how the
“physical reality” of something can be present without it being “physically” detectible to the senses. It is not meant to be an equivalent comparison by any means. An acorn always has the physical reality of a tree present substantially… - whereas bread does not always have the physical reality of Jesus substantially present (at least I don’t think it does!!! Omnipresence??? just funning.).

I used to love analogies to try to convey nuances/concepts/… But I’ve become more hesitant with time because I’ve noticed that often the person gets more involved in trying to find a hole in the analogy than trying to grasp the point it was used to make.
AND, I AM DEFINITELY NOT SAYING THIS ABOUT YOU, JON. We’ve both been on here awhile and I know you much better than that and always find your posts enlightening.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not sure what you mean Jon.

As I said, I was using it as an analogy just to give brb some sort of a sense in how the
“physical reality” of something can be present without it being “physically” detectible to the senses. It is not meant to be an equivalent comparison by any means. An acorn always has the physical reality of a tree present substantially… - whereas bread does not always have the physical reality of Jesus substantially present (at least I don’t think it does!!! Omnipresence??? just funning.).

I used to love analogies to try to convey nuances/concepts/… But I’ve become more hesitant with time because I’ve noticed that often the person gets more involved in trying to find a hole in the analogy than trying to grasp the point it was used to make.
AND, I AM DEFINITELY NOT SAYING THIS ABOUT YOU, JON. We’ve both been on here awhile and I know you much better than that and always find your posts enlightening.

You are very kind. Thanks.

What I mean is, if we continue the analogy, the acorn is the bread. When we eat the acorn, we know we are really eating the tree. What I’m saying is that what I see in the convergence of Lutheran and Catholic thought on the RP is precisely what you’ve said;
His presence is “truly, really, sacramentally, substantially and essentially”. The acorn is the tree. The bread IS His body.

Jon

 

[clmowry]

My apologies to clmowry whom I twice incorrectly referred to as clchowry.

No problem. Nobody can ever spell Mowry after they hear it any way. (Doesn’t seem that tuff to me, but I’ve had lots of practice.)

 

[Nita]

1.) You really have no way of knowing this … do you ? Since you don’t think the substance can be measured

Are you aware that in approved Eucharistic miracles such as Lanciano, the Church does not teach that the miraculous flesh and blood manifested in those miracles is actually the body and blood of Jesus? They wouldn’t hand them over to laboratories for testing (anymore than they would a consecrated host) if they did hold it was truly our living Lord.

(Recall that Our Lord’s Eucharistic presence - His** true body, blood, soul, and divinity **- is a presence under the accidents of bread and wine, NOT under the accidents of flesh and blood. The Church has never taught that He has been sacramentally (truly, really, substantially and essentially) present under any other accidents than those of bread and wine.

 

[Nita]

You are very kind. Thanks.

What I mean is, if we continue the analogy, the acorn is the bread. When we eat the acorn, we know we are really eating the tree. What I’m saying is that what I see in the convergence of Lutheran and Catholic thought on the RP is precisely what you’ve said;
His presence is “truly, really, sacramentally, substantially and essentially”. The acorn is the tree. The bread IS His body.

Jon

Yes!
The difference is the acorn, from it’s first moment, was always the tree. The bread was bread first. Only after the consecration did it become His body.

 

[clmowry]

You are very kind. Thanks.

What I mean is, if we continue the analogy, the acorn is the bread. When we eat the acorn, we know we are really eating the tree. What I’m saying is that what I see in the convergence of Lutheran and Catholic thought on the RP is precisely what you’ve said;
His presence is “truly, really, sacramentally, substantially and essentially”. The acorn is the tree. The bread IS His body.

Jon

I must need an advanced course. I know their IS a difference between:

Body and Blood under the species of Bread and Wine.

and

Body and Blood and Bread and Wine.

I’m just not sure why it’s important.

Anybody have a reference to that affect?

Thanks,

Chuck

 

[JonNC]

Yes!
The difference is the acorn, from it’s first moment, was always the tree. The bread was bread first. Only after the consecration did it become His body.

Agreed.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[Nita]

You are very kind. Thanks.

What I mean is, if we continue the analogy, the acorn is the bread. When we eat the acorn, we know we are really eating the tree. What I’m saying is that what I see in the convergence of Lutheran and Catholic thought on the RP is precisely what you’ve said;
His presence is “truly, really, sacramentally, substantially and essentially”. The acorn is the tree. The bread IS His body.

Jon

We’ve been on Eucharist threads together before, so I know how close your beliefs are to Catholic teaching. I don’t want to sidetrack this thread, but perhaps my question/s can be answered quickly.
Using “substance” in it’s philosophical sense, do you hold that the original bread and wine have the substance of bread and wine? - and thus that a change occurs whereby those substances (of bread and wine) are transformed into the substances of flesh and blood?
If someone were to preach that both substances were present in the Eucharist - those of bread/wine and Christ’s body/blood - would you accept that position as true? If not, how would you correct it?

Gosh, I hope you’ll join us in the Catholic Church some day.

 

[Nita]

I must need an advanced course. I know their IS a difference between:

Body and Blood** under the species **of Bread and Wine.

In the above (underlined), the only “substance” present is that of the Body and Blood.
The species/accidents (but not the substance) are those of Bread and Wine.

and

Body and Blood and Bread and Wine.

In the above line, the substance of the Body and Blood is present** and **also the substance of the bread and wine.

In Catholic teaching, both “substances” are never present at the same time; it’s either one or the other.

I’m just not sure why it’s important.

It’s important because so many varying teachings arose that were/are contradictory to the understanding of the Eucharist which the Church had taught and practiced from it’s beginning. You might say these heresies “forced” the Church to articulate it’s teaching in a clear and concise language that would both specify the correct teaching as well as point out where the error lie in the erroneous understandings/teachings.

The truth is always important.

 

[clmowry]

It’s important because so many varying teachings arose that were/are contradictory to the understanding of the Eucharist which the Church had taught and practiced from it’s beginning. You might say these heresies “forced” the Church to articulate it’s teaching in a clear and concise language that would both specify the correct teaching as well as point out where the error lie in the erroneous understandings/teachings.

The truth is always important.

It’s those errors I was looking for… I’ll start with the Catholic Encyclopedia, I’m sure that’ll head me off on the right path. (i.e. Transubstantiation was not an answer to Consubstantiation, it was a fully developed doctrine of the real presence in response to…“fill in the blank.”)

Thanks,

Chuck

 

[Nita]

It’s those errors I was looking for… I’ll start with the Catholic Encyclopedia, I’m sure that’ll head me off on the right path. (i.e. Transubstantiation was not an answer to Consubstantiation, it was a fully developed doctrine of the real presence in response to…“fill in the blank.”)

Thanks,

Chuck

Some errors that I’ve heard of:

1. both physical “substances” are simultaneously present in the Eucharist
2. only physical substance of bread and wine present; Jesus present in a spiritual sense.
3. only the physical substance present until consumed; then Jesus becomes present. (Not sure if this view ever includes more than a spiritual presence.)
4. only the physical substance of bread and wine are present. The bread and wine only symbolize Jesus.
5. only the physical substance of bread and wine present. Jesus not present in any way (other than 2 or more gathered for prayer). The ritual is performed only because Jesus said “Do this…”