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

  • Thread starter Thread starter brb3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Chuck …

‘co-existing’ and ‘becoming’ … From the scientific standpoint — are TOTALLY DIFFERENT !!!

In the case of Consubstantiation … one could find both ETOH and GLUTEN by physical/chemical testing. In case of Transubstantiation… one would not detect either alcohol or wheat, by lab testing.
 
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 !
Again, find a Lutheran source. I promise I won’t tell you as a Catholic what you believe, if you promise the same.

The fact is that not Luther, nor Lutherans teach consubstantiation, or any other philosophical/metaphysical construct for the fact of the real presence. Sacramental Union is not consubstantiation. It is not impanation. There is no mingling of the substances of bread and body (consubstantiation). The confessions clearly reject this.

What Lutherans do believe is Christ’s words. We believe that the bread IS His body. How this happens is a mystery.

From the Lutheran Book of Conocrd
The Tenth Article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the Sacrament. This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:16, that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, etc., it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that the bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the spirit of Christ. 55] And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes, and formerly believed, the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that bread is not a mere figure, but 56] is truly changed into flesh. And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John 15, in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with Him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this, we say, is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is in this manner a vine, and we the branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying 1 Cor. 10:17; Rom. 12:5; Gal. 3:28: We are all one body in Christ; although we are many, we are, nevertheless, one in Him; for we are, all partakers of that one bread. Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also, by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily? And a little after: Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to the habit, which we call love, 57] but also by natural participation, etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here concerning this subject, for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article, but in order that all who may read them may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; for we know that death hath no more dominion over Him, Rom. 6:9.
Dr. Luther has also more amply expounded and confirmed this opinion from God’s Word in the Large Catechism, where it is written: What, then, is the Sacrament of the Altar? Answer: It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine, which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink. 21] And shortly after: It is the ‘Word,’ I say, which makes and distinguishes this Sacrament, so that it is not mere bread and wine, but is, and is called. the body and blood of Christ. 22] Again: With this Word you can strengthen your conscience and say: If a hundred thousand devils, together with all fanatics, should rush forward, crying, How can bread and wine be the body and blood of Christ? I know that all spirits and scholars together are not as wise as is the Divine Majesty in His little finger. Now, here stands the Word of Christ: “Take, eat; this is My body. Drink ye all of this; this is the new testament in My blood,” etc. Here we abide, and would like to see those who will constitute themselves His masters, and make it different from what He has spoken. 23] It is true, indeed, that if you take away the Word, or regard it without the Word, you have nothing but mere bread and wine. But if the words remain with them, as they shall and must, then, in virtue of the same, it is truly the body and blood of Christ. For as the lips of Christ say and speak, so it is, as He can never lie or deceive.
Jon
 
he himself said, “This is my body” and This is the cup of my blood"
Yes, but when one sees the priest holding the host saying “This (implying the bread) is my Body” that can lead to the consubstantiation belief.

In the Latin Hic est enim Corpus Meum, Hic clearly refers to Corpus, because it agrees in (neuter) gender. Hic cannot refer to Panem, because Panem is feminine in gender. The Latin therefore is consistent with transubstantiation; the English is ambiguous at best. In fact, any language which translates “hic,” “hoc,” “haec,” “hunc,” “huic,” “hanc,” “hac” to the same word (“this”) is deficient IMO.

Omlor and others pointed out the translation problems in the 60’s.
 
The fact is that not Luther, nor Lutherans teach consubstantiation, or any other philosophical/metaphysical construct for the fact of the real presence. Sacramental Union is not consubstantiation. It is not impanation. There is no mingling of the substances of bread and body (consubstantiation). The confessions clearly reject this.

What Lutherans do believe is Christ’s words. We believe that the bread IS His body. How this happens is a mystery.
Nice effort JonNC … but, ML is not saying what 10th Article says. Read his words carefully … they clearly teach Consubstantiation.

When was 10th Article composed by Lutherans ? That Article appears to have corrected ML’s error … and is more in line with the Catholic understanding/teachings.

Anything else on the subject written by ML … or by the Lutheran Church ?
 
JonNC …

Catholics speak of receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity at Mass, … not Bread and Wine [for they have been transformed into the Indivisible Christ, by Christ].

This is not what Luther was saying … thus, I titled the thread LUTHER’S CONSUBSTANTIATION … not Lutheran’s !! Again, glad to see your church has/is correcting his err 👍
 
JonNC … this article is confused, and does not make the case for you.

It proports to teach what Lutherans believe, namely … [that the Lord’s Supper is not a ‘co-existance’ of the bread/wine with Christ]. But, it does not teach this !!!
Read carefully … These explanations still maintain that bread/wine are present, apart from Christ. Thus, the Consubstantiation ‘co-existance/co-presence’ teaching is still taught here, even though they deny teaching it !!!
 
Also, on my second reading of the 10th Article from the LUTHERAN BOOK OF CONCORD … I’ve spotted the error of Luther — still present today !

“We confess that we believe, that IN the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and TRULY TENDERED WITH THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE SEEN, BREAD AND WINE] to those who receive the Sacrament.”

I capitalized the words that point up the continued ‘co-existance’ of bread/wine along with Christ. Thus, the bread & wine remain the visible substance of the supper … and IN this, Christ is also TENDERED. This is Consubstantiation, by definition.
 
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 ?
I would say that consubstantiation is supported mostly by chemistry and physics. That is because con means with and the material can be detected with instrumentation. However, if we involve philosophy a little, we cannot say that two substances can occupy the same space at the same time. With transubstantiation, we can say there is only one substance with a different appearance.
mdcpensive1
 
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 ?
Interesting question, as I’ve been thinking on this after watching some science TV programs not too long ago on physics, quantum mechanics, etc.

After watching, I felt that one day, physics might be able to show by an equation on a blackboard how Transubstantiation would be possible. How the Mass can be the re-presentation of the one sacrifice at Calvary (dimensional rifts, wormholes, etc.)

Since the 1970’s I’ve thought of the Mass as imagining the table of the last supper extending through time and space to the present, with the whole Church sitting at the one and same table. Same with Christ on the Cross, still standing through time and space in the Mass and with both Heaven and Earth intersecting. As if the Mass itself were a wormhole or dimensional rift.

Could it be that what we now refer to as a mystery might be way ahead in physics?
 
I would say that consubstantiation is supported mostly by chemistry and physics. That is because con means with and the material can be detected with instrumentation.
That’s the point of the thread ! Has science identified wheat and Etoh in the Catholic hosts ? If the Vatican has approved grape juice and low gutten hosts, then maybe their scientists have done the physics/chemistry testing, & advised them to do so. If such is the case, then the Catholic Church’s Transubstantiation is wrong … and Luther’s Consubstantiation might be more scientifically accurate. Again, IMO, either process would be miraculous … although Transubstantiation is taught in scripture/tradition.
 
That’s the point of the thread ! Has science identified wheat and Etoh in the Catholic hosts ? If the Vatican has approved grape juice and low gutten hosts, then maybe their scientists have done the physics/chemistry testing, & advised them to do so. If such is the case, then the Catholic Church’s Transubstantiation is wrong … and Luther’s Consubstantiation might be more scientifically accurate. Again, IMO, either process would be miraculous … although Transubstantiation is taught in scripture/tradition.
The Church teaches that the “accidents” remain, which I understand to be the appearances. So of couse science would be able to detect bread and wine; I’ve never thought otherwise.

Just as if science had Christ or his body, they would detect only a human man, not God. However, physics might one day be able to show how Christ could be man and God.
 
That’s the point of the thread ! Has science identified wheat and Etoh in the Catholic hosts ? If the Vatican has approved grape juice and low gutten hosts, then maybe their scientists have done the physics/chemistry testing, & advised them to do so. If such is the case, then the Catholic Church’s Transubstantiation is wrong … and Luther’s Consubstantiation might be more scientifically accurate. Again, IMO, either process would be miraculous … although Transubstantiation is taught in scripture/tradition.
They are both comprised of carbon molecules. I don’t understand your question. Scientific instruments detect things that are material of our nature. Christ is above our nature and can’t be detected with natural instrumentation. We don’t have a “spirit” detector except on the ghost shows or ghost busters 🙂
 
The Church teaches that the “accidents” remain, which I understand to be the appearances. So of couse science would be able to detect bread and wine; I’ve never thought otherwise.
Nope … not according to the Church’s teachings on Transubstantiation.

Appearances are different than the substances. According to the Church, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist … and are transformed into the Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Christ. Our eyes, and other senses tell us it is bread and wine we are receiving … but, it is TRULY AND SUBSTANTIALLY Christ, under the appearance of bread & wine.

Thus, if we take the Church’s definition at face value, there is no longer bread [wheat] or wine [fermented etoh grape wine] but ONLY CHRIST alone. This is the great mystery !! What appears to our senses, is not what is truly present. Thus, at the molecular level, we should not find carbohydrates/etoh/ or vegetable protein … by chemical / physical testing.

Indeed, the miracle at Lanciano, resulted in the removal of the “cloaking” of the body/blood of Christ, under the appearances of bread & wine, and allowed the true physical/molecular substance of Christ to be seen & detected via molecular, scientific lab testing.
 
They are both comprised of carbon molecules. I don’t understand your question. Scientific instruments detect things that are material of our nature. Christ is above our nature and can’t be detected with natural instrumentation.
The Church recognition of Lanciano miracle suggests the Vatican believes Christ allowed his molecular body/blood to be seen and documented via scientific testing.

They also teach we can detect/experience his Soul/Divinity via the miracle of the Holy Spirit Illumination @ rebirth of Confirmation … as well as the spiritual healing & grace of forgiveness [of venial sins] we receive on receipt of the Eucharist.
 
Nope … not according to the Church’s teachings on Transubstantiation.

Appearances are different than the substances. According to the Church, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist … and are transformed into the Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Christ. Our eyes, and other senses tell us it is bread and wine we are receiving … but, it is TRULY AND SUBSTANTIALLY Christ, under the appearance of bread & wine.

Thus, if we take the Church’s definition at face value, there is no longer bread [wheat] or wine [fermented etoh grape wine] but ONLY CHRIST alone. This is the great mystery !! What appears to our senses, is not what is truly present. Thus, at the molecular level, we should not find carbohydrates/etoh/ or vegetable protein … by chemical / physical testing.

Indeed, the miracle at Lanciano, resulted in the removal of the “cloaking” of the body/blood of Christ, under the appearances of bread & wine, and allowed the true physical/molecular substance of Christ to be seen & detected via molecular, scientific lab testing.
I am not sure I agree with you hypothesis about what can not be seen on the molecular level after transubstantiation. The reason is that if poison wine was used (by accident of course) the people would still be poisoned because the texture and essence of the physical properties are still there where in actuality the wine has been changed on the spiritual level.
mdcpensive1
 
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
Consubstantiation

The doctrine, proposed by Martin Luther, that the substance of the body and blood of Jesus coexists with the substance of the bread and wine in the Eucharist.

This is what the dictionary states on line…

Seems some people/and authority think Luther associated this definition with Consubstantiation.
 
Nope … not according to the Church’s teachings on Transubstantiation.

Appearances are different than the substances. According to the Church, the substance of bread and wine cease to exist … and are transformed into the Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity of Christ. Our eyes, and other senses tell us it is bread and wine we are receiving … but, it is TRULY AND SUBSTANTIALLY Christ, under the appearance of bread & wine.

Thus, if we take the Church’s definition at face value, there is no longer bread [wheat] or wine [fermented etoh grape wine] but ONLY CHRIST alone. This is the great mystery !! What appears to our senses, is not what is truly present. Thus, at the molecular level, we should not find carbohydrates/etoh/ or vegetable protein … by chemical / physical testing.
Brb “substance” as used by the Church doesn’t mean the molecules or proteins of something as opposed to what you see. Molecules, when measured or observed or tested are perceived via their accidents just like everything else. In otherwords the molecules are perceived because the accidents remain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top