B
brb3
Guest
Which is best supported by 21st Century Physics/Chemistry ? Both require a miracle, both require faith to believe. But, which seems to fit the science of molecules and matter ?
- Status
C
clmowry
Guest
Well, since consubstantiation isn’t Luther’s…
But on the question, I don’t see a way of knowing. I’ll be interested in seeing what others say.
Jon
B
brb3
Guest
Nothing with regards to the Soul & Divinity … but, the Body & Blood, yes !
I know Christ is indivisible, but you know what I mean. Christ appeared to the 12, and let them touch his nail-pierced hands & sword punctured side … so they would no longer be Doubting Thomas’ …
B
brb3
Guest
Yes, he believed it … Maybe you are saying he didn’t first come up with the idea ?
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Provisionally, I cant think of any implications arising from either.
Prehaps you have an opinion about one or the other that we could discuss, brb3?
VC
Prehaps you have an opinion about one or the other that we could discuss, brb3?
VC
B
brb3
Guest
Ok … not his ‘original’ idea. It was initially developed by the heretic Berengarius, prior to 1050 AD … when the Catholic Church first condemned the idea as heresy.
Later, Wyclif and Luther took up the cause of Consubstantiation and taught it, rather than Transubstantiation … for which they too were condemned. Later, Henry’s 8th’s Anglican church promoted Consubstantiation Eucharist understandings… and still believe it today.
B
brb3
Guest
Ok …
How might a scientist test the two theories ? Or, at least use existing evidence from history… to make the case for either Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
I’m not sure that I understand all the nuances of your question, but I am of the opinon that a (rational) scientist wouldnt attempt inquire into either. Both refer to an underlying reality which isn’t measurable.
They would have to defer to philosophy.
VC
They would have to defer to philosophy.
VC
M
Maria56
Guest
Provisionally, I cant think of any implications arising from either.
http://www.nling.info/g.gif
http://www.nling.info/g.gif
B
brb3
Guest
I can understand a Catholic not desiring to put the Eucharist to a scientific test [to test the host for either gluten/wheat or presence of alcohol]. Scripture says “We are not to put God to the test”.
However, it appears that many Catholic Priests & laity believe that gluten & alcohol are present in the hosts IN CONTRADICTION of the teaching of Transubstantiation]. They believe an alcoholic could fall off the wagon, if allowed to receive the Eucharist … or that a person with wheat allergy or celiac disease could be harmed by the Eucharistic bread. Thus, grape juice and gluten-free bread are offered as ‘authorized’ substitutes, and obtained from official Catholic sources/suppliers.
But, there are other means of examining the hosts. There is empirical evidence, regarding cases where other Catholic priests truly believed in Transubstantiation rather than Consubstantiation], and allowed known alcoholics and people with wheat allergies and celiac disease to receive the blessed, ‘transformed’ hosts. There are numerous accounts, [especially for alcoholics], reporting no adverse effects for their healths or activation of prior ETOH addictions.
Yes, these instances represent observational, non-controlled, studies … rather than prospective Case-Control studies. Nevertheless, I’m not aware of a single instance where the Eucharist has ever caused a significant health injury.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
That’s not what I mean. I don’t mean that they dont test the eucharist because they ought not but rather it isn’t a fruitful inquiry in the first place (similar to, say, asking how much “justice” weighs).
Yes, that would be in contradiction . . . Do you know many who hold that?
But this is a position held also by those with a correct Catholic undrstanding i.e. It doesn’t mean that gluten or alcohol are present.
But those would invalidate the eucharist. They arent authorized.
There may be such cases, but Transubstantiation or consubstantiation doesn’t imply them. In other words, if you hold transubstantiation you don’t expect this to be the case and wouldn’t be looking for it.
VC
T
TimothyH
Guest
The one through whom the entire universe was created, the one who thought up both physics and chemistry before the universe was created, the one who created molecules and matter and holds them in existence, he himself said, “This is my body” and This is the cup of my blood"
It is Jesus.
-Tim-
C
clmowry
Guest
Not sure I get it.
Transubstantiation proposes that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.
Consubstantiation proposes that the bread and wine co-exist with the Body and Blood of Christ.
From a scientific stand point, there is no difference between what one would expect to observe.
Chuck
Transubstantiation proposes that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearance of bread and wine.
Consubstantiation proposes that the bread and wine co-exist with the Body and Blood of Christ.
From a scientific stand point, there is no difference between what one would expect to observe.
Chuck
Reference please. Luther rejected the very notion of philosophical/metaphisical descriptions of the nature of the real presence - Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. Luther never taught consubstantiation. And knowedgeable Lutherans reject the notion today.
Jon
B
brb3
Guest
Perhaps after the Church rejected his error ? Did Luther ever back down from the Pope or Church ?
Give it up JonNC … cite your written info sources
B
brb3
Guest
www.thefreedictionary.com/consubstantiation “The Doctrine, proposed by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body & blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist.”
B
brb3
Guest
JonNC …
Also at www.theopedia.com/Consubstantiation ‘Luther DID TEACH that the body and blood of Christ are present “in, with, and under the forms” of bread and wine, and PRESENT DAY LUTHERANS HOLD TO THIS STATEMENT while disagreeing about its exact meaning.’
Luther wrote “iron put into the fire whereby BOTH the fire & iron are united in the red-hot iron AND YET EACH CONTINUES UNCHANGED.”
That JonNC is clearly the meaning of Consubstantiation … and not something you / Lutherans can sweep away and disagree over his meaning !
Also at www.theopedia.com/Consubstantiation ‘Luther DID TEACH that the body and blood of Christ are present “in, with, and under the forms” of bread and wine, and PRESENT DAY LUTHERANS HOLD TO THIS STATEMENT while disagreeing about its exact meaning.’
Luther wrote “iron put into the fire whereby BOTH the fire & iron are united in the red-hot iron AND YET EACH CONTINUES UNCHANGED.”
That JonNC is clearly the meaning of Consubstantiation … and not something you / Lutherans can sweep away and disagree over his meaning !
A Lutheran reference, my friend. Catholics here all the time complain about the secular media distorting Catholic belief.
Jon
- Status