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

[Verbum_Caro]

Verbum …

Perhaps you’d like to present your Orthodox views on Real Presence & Transubstantiation vs the Consubstantiation viewpoint ? Also, provide/cite Eucharistic miracles from history, that support your viewpoint.

Brb,

Im not sure what you are asking exactly. Do you want to discuss the doctrine of the real presence and transubstantition? Usually there isnt a need to appeal to eucharistic miracles in such a discussion (if by eucharistic miracles you mean those didactic miracles where a consecrated host appears diffeerently than it normally should . . . If you mean eucharistic miracles in the broad sense, i.e. the miraculous nature of transubstantition itself, then that is part and parcel of discussing transubstantiation.)

Im happy to discuss these things with you (as some know, this is my favorite topic). It looks like there are a few people who are challenging your views, or at least the way you are expressing them. Do you entertain the possibility that you might be mistaken on certain points?

VC

 

[brb3]

This atomic structure does not change. This is the reason the appearance doesn’t change: because the atomic structure has not changed. What has changed is the essence (ie substance). … There will be no scientific (ie physical, molecular) difference, only an essential difference.

NOPE …

Atomic structure = molecular substance… every substance uniquely identifiable by mass spectrometry fingerprint.

For you to say “the atomic structure has not changed … but what has changed is the essence [substance]” … is problematic / contradictory !

 

[mardukm]

NOPE …

Atomic structure = molecular substance… every substance uniquely identifiable by mass spectrometry fingerprint.

For you to say “the atomic structure has not changed … but what has changed is the essence [substance]” … is problematic / contradictory !

The problem here is that you are equating “substance” with something that is not biblical nor according to the Church’s understanding.

BIblically speaking, Christ’s flesh has real “substance,” but it was a “substance” that defied all the known laws of physics (it could walk through walls, defy gravity, contradict the basic law of entropy, etc. etc.) . So I don’t know how you can blithely assume that it can be “measured” by conventional scientific means.

Further, the Church often utilizes terms that have a different meaning than its normal, secular usage. Offhand, I can thnk of the ecclesiogolical terms “immediate,” “ordinary” and “proper.” People who think these words have their usual, secular connotations when they read the dogma on Papal primacy end up sorely misinterpreting and misrepresenting Catholic teaching on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[brb3]

BIblically speaking, Christ’s flesh has real “substance,” but it was a “substance” that defied all the known laws of physics (it could walk through walls, defy gravity, contradict the basic law of entropy, etc. etc.) . So I don’t know how you can blithely assume that it can be “measured” by conventional scientific means.

Mardukm …

Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity … all present in the Eucharist, per Chruch teaching. So, the body & blood should be accessible to science testing. Indeed, the Church believes so … allowing scientists to test the Miracle of Lanciano, test the Shroud of Turin, etc.

Now, a scientist down in Brazil, has been given a piece of bread host, dropped and contaminated, and claims he had it tested by various scientists, w/o telling them the source of the matter. This has been ongoing since 1999. Has the Church moved in to confront the man or confiscate the host – and preclude further testing ? It would appear that the Church in Brazil supports his efforts to continue study, and speak of the findings. Again, I’ve only seen the video, as of yesterday. No time to conduct my own research further into the matter. But, the claim is … a piece of living, Lt. Ventricular Heart tissue, with blood components, has been studied over last 13 years. Human tissue that appeared in the Bread … and is alive.

Lanciano, and other miraculous miracles involving the Eucharist from past centuries, are also showing human flesh/blood … by scientific testing. If Christ is opposed to these scientific studies, or thought the Church was being mislead to believe/teach these miraculous events, or ONLY DISIRED his Spirit/Soul presence in the Eucharist to be the TRUTH ALONE … then, why did we get these miracles when Priests doubted Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist ? Christ knew the 12 had some doubts of his resurrection … and appeared to them IN THE FLESH, and challenged them [Thomas] to examine/hold his flesh … and to doubt no more. It appears Christ is still intent on making sure we are fully aware of his Body & Blood in the Eucharist … and not just his spiritual Soul/Divinity.

 

[mardukm]

Mardukm …

Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity … all present in the Eucharist, per Chruch teaching. So, the body & blood should be accessible to science testing. Indeed, the Church believes so … allowing scientists to test the Miracle of Lanciano, test the Shroud of Turin, etc.

Now, a scientist down in Brazil, has been given a piece of bread host, dropped and contaminated, and claims he had it tested by various scientists, w/o telling them the source of the matter. This has been ongoing since 1999. Has the Church moved in to confront the man or confiscate the host – and preclude further testing ? It would appear that the Church in Brazil supports his efforts to continue study, and speak of the findings. Again, I’ve only seen the video, as of yesterday. No time to conduct my own research further into the matter. But, the claim is … a piece of living, Lt. Ventricular Heart tissue, with blood components, has been studied over last 13 years. Human tissue that appeared in the Bread … and is alive.

Lanciano, and other miraculous miracles involving the Eucharist from past centuries, are also showing human flesh/blood … by scientific testing. If Christ is opposed to these scientific studies, or thought the Church was being mislead to believe/teach these miraculous events, or ONLY DISIRED his Spirit/Soul presence in the Eucharist to be the TRUTH ALONE … then, why did we get these miracles when Priests doubted Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist ? Christ knew the 12 had some doubts of his resurrection … and appeared to them IN THE FLESH, and challenged them [Thomas] to examine/hold his flesh … and to doubt no more. It appears Christ is still intent on making sure we are fully aware of his Body & Blood in the Eucharist … and not just his spiritual Soul/Divinity.

As Verbum Caro pointed out, you are referring to a miracle that is not identical to the miracle of Transubstantiation. In your examples, both the substance and accidents change. In Transubstantiation, only the substance changes, but the accidents remain.

The accidents are things that can be verified scientifically. I think that’s the problem with your rhetoric. You think that it is the substance that is or can be measured, when it is actually the accidents. In distinction, the substance or essence of a thing is a metaphysical reality that often cannot be measured by scientific means.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[MarcoPolo]

To echo those who are saying the same, the idea of substance with regard to Transubstantiation cannot be measured empirically. Also, for the requested Church documents supporting such, refer to the Council of Trent, just as one example.*TRENT SESSION 13
In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist, 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.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.*The “sensible” characteristics of bread and wine, which are also called “species” or “accidents” remain. Thus, no physical or chemical scientific scrutiny will reveal what the Church calls the “substantive” change. There’s really not a debate on the matter.

 

[Nita]

Here are some lines from an article that appeared some time ago in the National Catholic Register (NOT to be confused with the National Catholic Reporter!!!). The author is Fr. Owen Kearns who was publisher and editor in chief at the time.
Quote:
…In this regard, it is important to distinguish between what is present in the Eucharist and how it is present.

Regarding what is present: Christ’s physical body is present. The Church teaches that the full physical reality of Christ’s human body is present in the Eucharist. …

Regarding how it is present: Christ’s physical body is not physically present. Here is the paradox, and the miracle, and the sacrament.

The Church has never, not once, taught that Christ’s physical body is physically present in the Eucharist. It teaches that Christ’s physical body is present truly, really, sacramentally, substantially and essentially.

 

[JonNC]

Do an internet search on the previous Eucharistic miracles, and lab testing performed … and get back to us.

Oh, I have. But my understanding is that this is not the usual Transubstantiation. In the Eucharistic miracles, even the accidents are changed. In a usual consecration, from what I have been told, only the substance changes. If science checks the consecrated host, it is checking the accidents, not the substance.

I will leave the conversation since you seem to have your hands full with Catholics that dispute your claims about Transubstantiation. But I will say this, the dispute you have with them is exactly the kind of discussion outside of Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist. That is, not that Transubstantiation is necessarily wrong, but that it is metaphysical in nature. We simply don’t go there. And that is why we reject consubstantiation, and further it is why what Luther and Lutherans teach/taught is not consubstantiation, because for us it is not a discussion for us of accidents and substance. It is a discussion of what Christ says - the bread is His body. What we receive is His body. God does with the bread as He wills.

Jon

 

[brb3]

1.) Regarding what is present: Christ’s physical body is present. The Church teaches that the full physical reality of Christ’s human body is present in the Eucharist. …

2). The Church has never, not once, taught that Christ’s physical body is physically present in the Eucharist.

Uh… Statements 1 & 2 above are contradictory.

Is Christ’s physical body present or not ?

 

[brb3]

1.) In your examples, both the substance and accidents change.

2.) You think that it is the substance that is or can be measured, when it is actually the accidents.

3.) In distinction, the substance or essence of a thing is a metaphysical reality that often cannot be measured by scientific means.

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

2.) Yes, I do think the substance [molecular structure] can be detected/measured by scientists/lab processes. And, yes… our 5 senses can potentially detect the accidents.

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.

 

[SPH1]

brb3, are you basing your views on actual Catholic doctrine, or on your own interpretations?

 

[brb3]

I will say this, the dispute you have with them is exactly the kind of discussion outside of Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist. That is, not that Transubstantiation is necessarily wrong, but that it is metaphysical in nature. We simply don’t go there.

Lutherans don’t seem to know what they believe … from what I read on your forums.

Some Catholics posting here believe Transubstantiation is entirely Metaphysical. I would strongly disagree which them. The fact that the Vatican has in many cases encouraged scientific experimentation, and trumpeted scientific lab results, suggests to me that they don’t believe Christ is entirely Metaphysical for us.

Christ was constantly doing physical miracles, while here on Earth … for mankind to appreciate and attribute to the glory of God. Christ’s passion and salvation for mankind, was not a Metaphysical death, but a physical one. When Christ spoke of the Eucharist, the new Todah, it was regarding his physical body & blood. We are to consume the hosts … as a physical meal, not just a metaphysical one. Christ did not mention his Soul / Divinity in the Prayer he offered at the Last Supper.

Yes, we know His Soul/Divinity are present as well … as He is indivisible. But, Christ EMPHASIZED the human PHYSICAL aspects of his persona … as the Lamb of God shed for us. Yes, we get the Complete GOD-Man in the Eucharist … so its always Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity for us. The Total Christ … the REAL PRESENCE !!

The Physical & the Metaphysical Lord. Just as the Disciples knew him … so too it is for us.

Am I wrong ?

 

[brb3]

brb3, are you basing your views on actual Catholic doctrine, or on your own interpretations?

Scripture, the ECF’s, the CCC, and what Christ has worked in modern-day miracles, to point up His physical presence in the Eucharist.

I try to keep my Catholic beliefs c/w the above …

 

[JonNC]

=brb3;9103662]Lutherans don’t seem to know what they believe … from what I read on your forums.

Gosh, brb, the things I posted seemed quite consistent. The word consubstantiation isn’t mentioned except in the negative. But if what you say below is true (meaning your interpretation compared to your fellow Catholics’), we seem to share the common problem of catechesis.

Some Catholics posting here believe Transubstantiation is entirely Metaphysical. I would strongly disagree which them. The fact that the Vatican has in many cases encouraged scientific experimentation, and trumpeted scientific lab results, suggests to me that they don’t believe Christ is entirely Metaphysical for us.

From my reading, particularly Catholic - Lutheran dialogue, there is seeming convergence that the Eucharist - Christ’s presence - is sacramental, but we also agree that we receive Him not just in a spiritual sense, but also orally.

Christ was constantly doing physical miracles, while here on Earth … for mankind to appreciate and attribute to the glory of God. Christ’s passion and salvation for mankind, was not a Metaphysical death, but a physical one. When Christ spoke of the Eucharist, the new Todah, it was regarding his physical body & blood. We are to consume the hosts … as a physical meal, not a metaphysical one. Christ did not mention his Soul / Divinity in the Prayer he offered at the Last Supper.

Yes, we know His Soul/Divinity are present as well … as He is indivisible. But, Christ EMPHASIZED the human PHYSICAL aspects of his persona … as the Lamb of God shed for us. Yes, we get the Complete GOD-Man in the Eucharist … so its always Body/Blood/Soul/Divinity for us. The Total Christ … the REAL PRESENCE !!

The Physical & the Metaphysical Lord. Just as the Disciples knew him … so too it is for us.

Am I wrong ?

I don’t think you are necessarily wrong, but I also don’t think the eating and drinking, while oral, is a Capernaitic mode. The oral consumption is a Heavenly mode, supernatural, and in many ways beyond our understanding - a mystery.

Jon

 

[brb3]

The essence/substance of the physical bread/wine has changed from being a physical nourishment to a purely spiritual nourishment.

Someone hit the nail on the head earlier when it was stated that the true essence of the bread cannot be measured physically, but only metaphysically.

:nope:… Mardukm You gonna listen to someone else, or to words of Christ ?

“He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD, and MY BLOOD REAL DRINK”. John 6:54-56

 

[clmowry]

:nope:… Mardukm You gonna listen to someone else, or to words of Christ ?

“He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD, and MY BLOOD REAL DRINK”. John 6:54-56

I understand why you correctly assert that the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ.

I don’t understand why you insist that this means the Church also asserts that the Body and Blood do appear under the species of bread and wine?

Do you have a Church document that says this of which I’m unaware?

Chuck

 

[brb3]

I don’t understand why you insist that this means the Church also asserts that the Body and Blood do appear under the species of bread and wine?

Do you have a Church document that says this of which I’m unaware?

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

 

[mardukm]

:nope:… Mardukm You gonna listen to someone else, or to words of Christ ?

“He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For MY FLESH IS REAL FOOD, and MY BLOOD REAL DRINK”. John 6:54-56

I listen to my Lord. It’s just that I don’t think you understand some of the terms you are using, such as substance/essence, metaphysical, and accidents.

In secular philosophy, what is metaphysical is not real, just because it can’t be proven. But in theology, what is metaphysical is a REAL thing, even though it can’t be proven by scientific means. In short, you are imposing purely secular meanings on terms that have a different, theological understanding for the Church. That’s probably why your rhetoric sounds strange to a lot of us.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[brb3]

I don’t think you understand some of the terms you are using, such as substance/essence, metaphysical, and accidents.

In short, you are imposing purely secular meanings on terms that have a different, theological understanding for the Church. That’s probably why your rhetoric sounds strange to a lot of us.

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

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Brb,

I have two questions for you that might help with the discussion:

1. Do you entertain the possibility that you may be misunderstanding certain aspects, or are you confirmed in your stance and think that others misunderstand?
2. Are there any contemporary catholic thinkers that you admire and would expect to have a solid understanding of these things (e.g. Fulton Sheen, Chesterton, Frank Sheed, Leo Trese, etc.)?

Thanks,
VC