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

[brb3]

lambonthealtar.blogspot.com/2010/04/consubstantiation.html

JonNC …

The above article is also very confused and only points up the fact that Lutherans really don’t know what they believe on the Eucharist. Indeed, Lutherans state their Church makes no attempt to explain it.

Interestingly, note the 1st Comment to that article, from a Lutheran Reverend, to this article you cite above.

Rev. Steve Swets: “Likely the seeming confusion comes in with the definition of the word ‘Consubstantiation’. If Lutherans believe that Christ’s true body is WITH the Sacrament, THAT SOUNDS AN AWFUL LOT LIKE CONSUBSTANTIATION.”

 

[brb3]

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.

If what you claim they teach is factual, then the Church needs a lesson in chemistry and physics Not the case however …

The accidents [appearances], flow from the molecular-atomic structure of substances and the God-created scientific laws thereof. Unless by miraculous means, appearances are suspended or ‘cloaked’ from our 5 senses.

But, in the case of the Eucharist, our Church teaches that the accidents remain … even though the molecular substance has been changed !! Truly miraculous & contrary to scientific laws/understandings !

 

[brb3]

brb3, I don’t know if you have seen it but this can knock your socks off concerning the Eucharist.
tfpstudentaction.org/resources/forgotten-truths/impressive-video-of-eucharistic-miracle.html?utm_source=sm&utm_medium=email&utm_content=SAE0065&utm_campaign=MainNewsletter

mdcpensive1

No… had not seen or heard of this video. This is exactly on point !!! Thanks for sharing link. Everyone should take the 5-6 minutes to view this vid, and can express your impressions thereof on this Thread, as this clearly speaks to the topic of scientific investigation of the Catholic Eucharist …

 

[Verbum_Caro]

If what you claim they teach is factual, then the Church needs a lesson in chemistry and physics Not the case however …

The accidents [appearances], flow from the molecular-atomic structure of substances and the God-created scientific laws thereof. Unless by miraculous means, appearances are suspended or ‘cloaked’ from our 5 senses.

But, in the case of the Eucharist, our Church teaches that the accidents remain … even though the molecular substance has been changed !! Truly miraculous & contrary to scientific laws/understandings !

Nope. You said that you wouldn’t for shouldn’t find molecules of whatnot. “Finding” molecules means finding accidents of molecules. The doctrine is that the accidents remain. Catholics expect to perceive molecules of whatever was there before transubstantiation.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

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.

brb3, although I don’t agree with consubstantiation or what Luther believed after the Reformation, Luther didn’t teach or believe in consubstantiation. theopedia.com/Consubstantiation

He believed that the body and blood of Christ were present with the bread and wine in an unexplainable way, which is what makes it different from consubstantiation since it tries to explain what happens during the consecration (from a heretical pov).

So although you may disagree with it like I do, there is no point in trying to misrepresent other religions/denominations views.

 

[SPH1]

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

The Eucharist is explicitly meant to be eaten, and if the Eucharist becomes uneatable I’d think that the miracle ends. So if poison were somehow interjected prior to the Mass, I’d say that Transubstantiation did not occur. Certainly poison does not become transubstantiated. If poison were interjected AFTER transubstantiation, it may be that transubstantiation ends.

Didn’t I read once that the Church teaches that at some point the change ceases, if the Host is left around long enough? If so, same principle.

 

[SPH1]

Back to the original physics question. Whether or not Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, I think that the idea that Christ exists among the bread and wine could be similar to Christ walking through the wall.

We know that at the atomic and lower level, everything is mostly space. When Christ walked through the wall, I guess his atoms (however they existed) existed alongside the atoms of the wall at that moment. So in this sense, the “Lutheran” view could be compatible with current science, at least make some sense. I say current, as years down the road what science now knows could be kindergarten stuff.

I don’t know that the walking through the wall analogy would work with transubstantiation. It would be that as Christ passed through the wall, the wall essentially ceased to exist insofar as it’s “space” were occupied by Christ.

If science cannot explain or support some matters of faith, I think that is because science has not yet advanced far enough. And perhaps never will. The Mass is “way out there” with regard to science and physics. But I do think that someday this might become an explainable equation on a blackboard.

 

[honeyy]

Consubstantiation proposes that the bread and wine co-exist with the Bodyhttp://www.nling.info/g.gif and Blood of Christ.

 

[brb3]

The Eucharist is explicitly meant to be eaten, and if the Eucharist becomes uneatable I’d think that the miracle ends. So if poison were somehow interjected prior to the Mass, I’d say that Transubstantiation did not occur. Certainly poison does not become transubstantiated. If poison were interjected AFTER transubstantiation, it may be that transubstantiation ends.

Didn’t I read once that the Church teaches that at some point the change ceases, if the Host is left around long enough? If so, same principle.

Well, if poison were added to the Eucharist by a priest … he would consume it first. No priest would do such a thing … unless suicidal or ‘testing’ God’s miracle of the Mass.

But, the Church does teach that the Miracle of Transubstantiation PURIFIES the host. We are consuming CHRIST … no longer bread, water, wine, poison, germs/bacteria from the hands [of server] or the cup’s lip or liquid contents. It’s been said and widely believed that no one has gotten a communicable illness from receipt of the Eucharist. Such is even said / promoted for the waters of spring & baths @ Lourdes in France.

Regarding the ‘loss’ of Christ, or the efficacious Transubstantiated Eucharist over time. NOPE !! The Church teaches Christ remains in the host, and the Eucharist can much later be taken to the homebound sick … with full efficacious properties. In the early centuries of the Church, the faithful were allowed to take the blessed bread home with them, for daily consumption.

Ironically, Luther denied this possibility. He taught that the host lost their miraculous properties as soon as the church’s Lord Supper was over. Those who teach Consubstantiation also hold to this viewpoint of Luther’s. Thus, Consubstantiationalists … don’t show same reverence for the left-over host, like Catholic do. Catholics even have Adoration Chapels to point up this very belief that Christ remain constantly with the host, in the Tabernacle. Also the reason we kneel before the Tabernacle, when we enter and leave the Church at each Mass.

 

[brb3]

Back to the original physics question. Whether or not Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, I think that the idea that Christ exists among the bread and wine could be similar to Christ walking through the wall.

We know that at the atomic and lower level, everything is mostly space. When Christ walked through the wall, I guess his atoms (however they existed) existed alongside the atoms of the wall at that moment. So in this sense, the “Lutheran” view could be compatible with current science, at least make some sense. I say current, as years down the road what science now knows could be kindergarten stuff.

Catholics would perhaps say the wall ‘appeared’ to be there … but, in fact its molecular structure had been temporarily removed. A large worm-hole port had been created by Christ, cloaked by the appearance of a wall.

Christ created our Earth and its scientific laws … and can suspend or abrogate them whenever/however he wishes IMO & occasion experiences], Miracles are frequently taking place today on Earth. Indeed, at EVERY MASS a profound miracle is occurring … and the MASS is ongoing, 24-7, on this Earth. It is said to never cease … and so we realize this is indeed the case.

How did Christ allow Peter to walk on Water ? How did Philip get suddenly caught up from the Ethiopian, after his baptism ? How did the Apostles walk right out of the Jail in Phillipi ? How did Christ rise from the dead and ascend into heaven … witnessed by the 12 ? The creation of loaves of bread and a meal of fish to feed 5000, with 12 baskets leftover ? Our own conversions and spiritual rebirths … every Christian has had their own miracle of miracles, H.S. INFUSED into them, performed by Christ himself. How has Christianity grown from a small seed to transform the world … the Church surviving for 2000 years ?

Its all miraculous my friends … its all good !!! :grouphug:

 

[brb3]

Nope. You said that you wouldn’t for shouldn’t find molecules of whatnot. “Finding” molecules means finding accidents of molecules. The doctrine is that the accidents remain. Catholics expect to perceive molecules of whatever was there before transubstantiation.

Accidents are only what our 5 senses tell us is there. What we smell, taste, feel, see, hear. What is going on at the atomic-molecular level is not available to us to witness … w/o the tools of science.

We know there is incredible amount of power in the structure of atoms … atomic energy, magnetism, gravity, etc. So, when we receive the Eucharistic host … we appreciate wine/bread via our 5 senses. But, once we receive the host … internally we perceive the Supernatural Christ removing our sin and healing our minds. The Eucharist [Christ himself] being taken from our GI Tract, via bloodstream, to EVER CELL IN OUR BODIES. Christ has become the literal SUPERNATURAL food, our mind/body craves.

Again, per words of Christ in Gospel of John, … “unless you eat my body and drink my blood … you have no [eternal] life in you” !

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Brb,

Just to clarify:

Are you under the impression that the color of Neptune or the width of an atom aren’t accidents because we don’t sense them without scientific instuments?

VC

 

[exnihilo]

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].

In my understanding, which is poor no doubt, of the philosophy and theology of transubstantiation that the Church is saying you receive the substance of Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity under the accidents of bread and wine. The accidents of bread and wine initially have the substance of bread and wine. When the priest confects the Eucharist he transforms the substance but not the accidents. To appearance and scientific examination (barring a Eucharistic miracle) the bread and wine remain bread and wine. But they truly contain in them Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity. That is the underlying substance of the accidents.

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.

I think someone else might have pointed this out but when the Church uses the word ‘substance’ they are using it in the Aristotelian sense. The Church is not saying that there is no longer bread and wine. They remain as the accident so to all appearances nothing has changed. But the substance has changed. The substance is the more important aspect of these objects.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

In my understanding, which is poor no doubt, of the philosophy and theology of transubstantiation that the Church is saying you receive the substance of Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity under the accidents of bread and wine. The accidents of bread and wine initially have the substance of bread and wine. When the priest confects the Eucharist he transforms the substance but not the accidents. To appearance and scientific examination (barring a Eucharistic miracle) the bread and wine remain bread and wine. But they truly contain in them Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity. That is the underlying substance of the accidents.

Hi exnihilo,

You are on the right track! But, there are a few inaccuracies that perhaps I can help clear up.

It would be a bit confused to say that the accidents of bread and wine intially have the substance of bread and wine, because that is an inversion. Properly speaking substances have accidents. You could say, instead, that the accidents inhere in the substance.

Likewise Catholics dont hold that after transubstantiation the underlying substance of the remaining accidents is Christ. We hold, in fact, that there is no underlying substance whatsoever for the accidents of bread and wine. (i.e. The accidents of bread and wine dont inhere in Christ. God keeps the accidents in independent being)

exnihilo:

I think someone else might have pointed this out but when the Church uses the word ‘substance’ they are using it in the Aristotelian sense. The Church is not saying that there is no longer bread and wine. They remain as the accident so to all appearances nothing has changed. But the substance has changed. The substance is the more important aspect of these objects.

We might want to clarify that the Church is saying that there is no longer bread and wine insofar as there is no substance of bread and wine, and substance answers the question of what something is.

VC

 

[exnihilo]

It would be a bit confused to say that the accidents of bread and wine intially have the substance of bread and wine, because that is an inversion. Properly speaking substances have accidents. You could say, instead, that the accidents inhere in the substance.

Yes, that does make more sense.

Likewise Catholics dont hold that after transubstantiation the underlying substance of the remaining accidents is Christ. We hold, in fact, that there is no underlying substance whatsoever for the accidents of bread and wine. (i.e. The accidents of bread and wine dont inhere in Christ. God keeps the accidents in independent being)

Can you explain ‘God keeps the accidents in independent being’.

We might want to clarify that the Church is saying that there is no longer bread and wine insofar as there is no substance of bread and wine, and substance answers the question of what something is.

Again that makes better sense. This would be like my substance is man (specifically my person), not just flesh and bones?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Can you explain ‘God keeps the accidents in independent being’.

Yes but only insofar as clarifying what I mean and but not insofar as explaining how it is done.

What i mean is that accidents normally are a kind of being that depends on another being to inhere in. Substances are the kind of being that dont inhere in another created thing to exist. In the case of the eucharist, God keeps an accident in being independently (like roundness).

VC

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Do the things that are in heacen have substances and accidents OR is everything in heaven Substance only?

 

[clmowry]

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.

You left out “appearance”

Chuck

 

[MarcoPolo]

Skimmed the thread. For what it’s worth, here’s my lengthy comparison of how Lutherans and Catholics understand the “substance” of the Eucharist.

And to reiterate what seems to not be sticking in this thread, physical or chemical science is ineffective at measuring what is an ontological change. For Catholics, and Lutherans as far as I know, the change is imperceptible.

The answer to the OP’s question is “neither.”

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Marcopolo,

Can you explain a bit about what you mean by “ontological change”?

Thanks
VC