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

[JonNC]

=Nita;9108108]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?

The correction is it is a mystery. Christ did not detail how the bread is His body. He only said that, “this [bread] is my body”. Certainly, we see, feel, touch, taste bread and wine, but we know that it is not mere bread and wine. It is His body and His blood, given and shed for the remission of sin.

As you know, Lutherans don’t use philosphical language regarding the Eucharist, but if you put me in the position of choosing transub or consub, I would choose transub, as it more closely reflects Christ’s own words.

I’ll reference the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on the Eucharist, which speaks directly to the issue: prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Eucharistic Presence

Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence.
In order to confess the reality of the eucharistic presence without reserve the Catholic Church teaches that "Christ whole and entire"34 becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This “wonderful and singular change” is “most aptly” called transsubstantiation by the Catholic Church.35 This terminology has widely been considered by Lutherans as an attempt rationalistically to explain the mystery of Christ’s presence in the sacrament; further, many suppose also that in this approach the present Lord is not seen as a person and naturalistic misunderstandings become easy.
The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation. Here they see real analogy to the Lord’s incarnation: as God and man become one in Jesus Christ, Christ’s body and blood, on the one hand, and the bread and wine, on the other, give rise to a sacramental unity. Catholics, in turn, find that this does not do sufficient justice to this very unity and to the force of Christ’s word “This is my body”.
The ecumenical discussion has shown that these two positions must no longer be regarded as opposed in a way that leads to separation. The Lutheran tradition agrees with the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but by the power of the creative Word are bestowed as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense it also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition of a “change”.36 The concept of transsubstantiation for its part is intended as a confession and preservation of the mystery character of the Eucharistic presence; it is not intended as an explanation of how this change occurs37 (see the appendices on “Real Presence” and “Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist”).

Jon

 

[Nita]

The correction is it is a mystery. Christ did not detail how the bread is His body. He only said that, “this [bread] is my body”. Certainly, we see, feel, touch, taste bread and wine, but we know that it is not mere bread and wine. It is His body and His blood, given and shed for the remission of sin.

As you know, Lutherans don’t use philosphical language regarding the Eucharist, but if you put me in the position of choosing transub or consub, I would choose transub, as it more closely reflects Christ’s own words.

I’ll reference the Lutheran-Catholic dialogue on the Eucharist, which speaks directly to the issue: prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/l-rc/doc/e_l-rc_eucharist.html

Jon

Thanks Jon.

The Lutherans have given expression to the reality of the Eucharistic presence by speaking of presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with and under bread and wine�but not of transsubstantiation.

It’s the above Lutheran explanation of Our Lord’s presence as being “in” (bread/wine), “with” (bread/wine), and “under” bread and wine that constitutes what Catholics understand as consubstantiation (con = with, together), and thus that Lutherans teach that both substances are present in the Eucharist - the substance of Our Lord’s body and blood as being present with(con) the substance of bread and wine.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks Jon.

It’s the above Lutheran explanation of Our Lord’s presence as being “in” (bread/wine), “with” (bread/wine), and “under” bread and wine that constitutes what Catholics understand as consubstantiation (con = with, together), and thus that Lutherans teach that both substances are present in the Eucharist - the substance of Our Lord’s body and blood as being present with(con) the substance of bread and wine.

The difference is we’re not speaking of it in a metaphysical sense.

Jon

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The difference is we’re not speaking of it in a metaphysical sense.

Jon

That is a point well taken, Jon. The difficulty that arises, for me, is that I have heard Lutherans (while avoiding any metaphysical language such as “substance” and "accidents) go on to say that the Eucharist is “true bread”. That, especially when it is said in contrast to what the Catholic Church teaches, seems to me to be a metaphysical statement.

VC

 

[brb3]

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?

So far … the miracles of Eucharist have shown blood cells & cardiac tissue.

It is entirely possible that what we receive, the substance of Christ, is the pluri-potent stem cell … which is the origin of all other cells, and can survive in dormancy thru out ones life. It would be hard to detect, yet would constitute the fullness of Christ, the body/blood REAL PRESENCE.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So far … the miracles of Eucharist have shown blood cells & cardiac tissue.

It is entirely possible that what we receive, the substance of Christ, is the pluri-potent stem cell … which is the origin of all other cells, and can survive in dormancy thru out ones life. It would be hard to detect, yet would constitute the fullness of Christ, the body/blood REAL PRESENCE.

Thank, brb. Don’t forget my questions number 1 and 2 above too.

But as to this question and your answer. So far, up until your answer to #3, you have been making an effort to synchronize what has happened in Eucharistic miracles with what happens in transubstantiation (saying that the molecules that make up flesh would be visible under a microscope in a normal consecration because the molecules that make up flesh -actually a certain kind of flesh, cardiac?- are visible under a microscope in a eucharistic miracle. Now, however, you hypothesize that we would find stem-cells in a usual transubstantiation.

I suppose that you hypothesize this because you wish to align the notion of visible cells in transubstantiation with the teaching of Trent that the whole Christ is present under both species . . . And therfore you will have a difficulty explaining why we would see only blood type molecules in the transubstatiated wine (which is what the Eucharistic miracles as a template would suggest) and only flesh type molecules in the transubstatiated bread (which, again using eucharistic miracles as a template, might mean a further difficulty because “cardiac tissue” isn’t the whole body of Christ anyway.)

Another problem I think you’ll have to tackle is the assertion in your most recent hypothesis that pluripotent stem cells are the fullness of Christ, or the whole Christ. A living body is quite distinct from its pluri potent stem cells, even were those stem cells kept alive. And note what Trent says (and which you echoed), the reason the body of Christ is present in the transubstantiation of the wine is because of the natural connection the two have with each other (at the moment), i.e. Concomitance. A pluripotent stem cell isnt two things connected, it isnt a body with blood coursing thrugh its veins.

I hope we can continue our conversation. Let me put in another plug for my first two questions

Thanks brb,
VC

 

[JonNC]

That is a point well taken, Jon. The difficulty that arises, for me, is that I have heard Lutherans (while avoiding any metaphysical language such as “substance” and "accidents) go on to say that the Eucharist is “true bread”. That, especially when it is said in contrast to what the Catholic Church teaches, seems to me to be a metaphysical statement.

VC

I can see why you would have difficulty with that. I do, too. If there is a problem with Sacramental Union, it is that it is sometimes interpreted, particularly by Reformed / Calvinists as consubstantiation or impanation. And I’ll be blunt when I say that some Lutherans (sadly) are influenced by Reformed.
If one reads the confessions with knowledge, I can see how we can view is, historically, as in opposition to Transubstantiation. What I can’t see is using metaphysical language to argue against metaphysical language.
The view of this Lutheran is, if we are going to use metaphysical language, there is no reason to dispute transubstantiation. Christ does not say “mixed with”. And while He also doesn’t say “becomes”, “becomes” seems closer to “is” than “mixed with” does. Otherwise, we should take Paul’s words to mean what they say; “*Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 15I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. 16Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? 17Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.” * He speaks of the bread as His body, for Christ says, "this [bread] is my body. And the key word here is is.

Jon

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I can see why you would have difficulty with that. I do, too. If there is a problem with Sacramental Union, it is that it is sometimes interpreted, particularly by Reformed / Calvinists as consubstantiation or impanation. And I’ll be blunt when I say that some Lutherans (sadly) are influenced by Reformed.
If one reads the confessions with knowledge, I can see how we can view is, historically, as in opposition to Transubstantiation. What I can’t see is using metaphysical language to argue against metaphysical language

Jon

Jon,

I confess (pun intended?) that i dont have much historical knowledge of how the Confessions play out and their relation to historical development and adoption by the various groups. You make a good point about not using metaphysics to condem the use of metaphysics!

What i had in mind was something like (or, the thing itself) article 6 of the Smalcald articles. That seems fairly direct.

Thanks,
VC

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

I confess (pun intended?) that i dont have much historical knowledge of how the Confessions play out and their relation to historical development and adoption by the various groups. You make a good point about not using metaphysics to condem the use of metaphysics!

What i had in mind was something like (or, the thing itself) article 6 of the Smalcald articles. That seems fairly direct.

Thanks,
VC

Ah, this.

Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.

5] As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread.

I removed the paragraph about both kinds, as it doesn’t apply here. May I suggest a couple of things.

1. The second part must be seen in light of the first. So, therefore, as Christ says, the bread is His body. Now, this does not exclude an understanding of “change”. Clearly, with His words spoken by the pastor/priest, and by the power of the Holy Spirit, there is a change. No longer mere bread, but His body. The bread is His body. Why? He says so. How? A mystery.
2. My understanding of this has always been, not a statement of metaphysics, not even a statement of explanation of the hows of the bread being His body, but simply one of rejection of metaphysics, that being transubstantiation. He calls it a “sophistical subtlety”.

Jon

 

[brb3]

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”?

So, you believe the Transubstantiated hosts we receive @ each Mass are not as ‘miraculous’ as Luciano’s miracle ? Christ spoke regarding his physical [healing] miracles vs spiritual healings & forgiveness of sins … and said the later were the greater miracles.

 

[brb3]

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! COLOR]

:nope:

Lack of scientific evidence is not PROOF that something does not exist. It only suggests they were unable to detect what they searched for.

 

[brb3]

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?

No I don’t think our Church would ordinarily conduct tests on the Consecrated hosts … outside of the several remarkable miracles, [Lanciano, etc]. I would think the Vatican would believe that it is wrong to put our Lord to the Test.

Occasionally, it appears the Lord has allowed Flesh & Blood to be visible … to difuse the doubts of modernday Thomas’. In these rare occasions, it appears the Lord has given consent in a visible way, for the miraculous substances to be examined to verify their phyical identity … so as to speak loudly of the miracle the Lord performed.

If you are aware of other occasions where the Vatican has scientifically tested the Eucharist, cite your sources.

 

[brb3]

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) .

This analogy of yours might indeed apply to Transubstantiation.

Acorns, the seed of a Tree. Christ, the Tree of Eternal Life. Christ taught, “unless a seed falls to the ground and dies, it cannot bring forth life”. He spoke of his Crucifixion/Burial/Resurrection, and of our deaths to sin and rebirth into Him. Christ also taught the Eucharistic Bread was his Body, and the Wine his Blood, “given up for you”. And, He taught unless we believed & partook of the Lord’s Supper … we had no eternal life in us.

So, in your analogy … the seed(s) of the Tree of Life, are the life-giving essence/substance of Christ, able to grow within us to Eternal Life … which we receive in the Eucharist, the substance of bread/wine, transformed into the Crucified & Resurrected ‘Seed of Life’ – which we must consume, to have life.

How small are the seeds of life … very tiny, in the case of the Mustard seed … yet it grows into the greatest of trees. So tiny are the seeds in the Eucharist, that they may be undetectible to our physical senses. Yet, the seeds of the REAL PRESENCE of Christ are truly there. And, like the PLANT acorn seed, … in human terms the HUMAN Omni-Present, Pluri-Potential stem cells of Christ, ‘planted’ in the Eucharist and able to grow within us as an abiding, everlasting presence of the Lord. Both physical and spiritual … the Total God-man Christ to us.

 

[Nita]

…Yet, the seeds of the REAL PRESENCE of Christ are truly there. And, like the PLANT acorn seed, … in human terms the HUMAN Omni-Present, Pluri-Potential stem cells of Christ, ‘planted’ in the Eucharist and able to grow within us as an abiding, everlasting presence of the Lord. Both physical and spiritual … the Total God-man Christ to us.

I guess we’ll just have to wait until we find out whether or not Our Lord’s glorified, resurrected Body and Blood has pluri-potent stem cells! Have a feeling glorified human bodies are something way beyond what now exists.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I guess we’ll just have to wait until we find out whether or not Our Lord’s glorified, resurrected Body and Blood has pluri-potent stem cells! Have a feeling glorified human bodies are something way beyond what now exists.

But Nita,

Regardless of whether or not Our Lord’s body does or doesn’t have stem cells. . . It doesnt speak to brbs assertion that stem cells (and only stem cells!!!) aree visible under microscopic examination of the consecrated host.

Brb, do you feel qualified to make such an assertion about one of the most profound and glorious mysteries of our faith? Or do you think, as i asked in question #1 that there could be a possibility that you might be misunderstanding a point or two?

VC

 

[Nita]

So far … the miracles of Eucharist have shown blood cells & cardiac tissue.

It is entirely possible that what we receive, the substance of Christ, is the pluri-potent stem cell … which is the origin of all other cells, and can survive in dormancy thru out ones life. It would be hard to detect, yet would constitute the fullness of Christ, the body/blood REAL PRESENCE.

The body/blood SOUL AND DIVINITY. It is not the physical resurrected flesh in itself that is primary; it is the presence of His soul and divinity united hypostatically to His body and blood that elevates His flesh above all other flesh and makes it “Life”. (Physically, His flesh is the same as ours; He assumed the same human nature we have.)

You seem to focus so much on the physical aspects. Pluri-potent cells are important because of their physical properties. Jesus didn’t institute the Eucharist to nourish our physical life, The life Jesus communicates in the Eucharist is not eternal physical life – that is, physical life in the sense of eternal physical existence. Everyone is going to exist eternally whether or not they received the Eucharist.

The “life” Jesus communicates is fully present in every single cell of His Body because the fullness of His Divinity is present in each cell regardless of what type of cell it is.

 

[Nita]

BTW, Jesus is not present physically in the Eucharist; His body is not present “physically” – neither His whole body or just one cell.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

May the Grace and Peace of the Lord be with you all.

If I may, I have looked on the thread but did not see any “official” links to the basic understanding of Roman Catholic and Lutherans regarding the Eucharist.

Please accept my apologies of I missed them.

RCC:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

Lutheran:

bookofconcord.org/defense_8_holysupper.php#article10

And an interesting article from Our Sunday Visitor:

osv.com/OSV4MeNav/Sacraments/TheEucharist/EucharisticQandA/tabid/498/Default.aspx

In Him.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Nita,

I think that sometimes the use of the words physical get confusing because of the different emphasis that can be used, e.g physically present versus physical reality. But, of course, they can all be used provided the proper distinctions are made - which i think you are endeavoring to provide. (for instance, “physical” can mean physical in the sense of a science, i.e observable, or it can mean physical in the sense of physical fitness, i.e relating to one’s own body.)

I think you’ve patterend your language after* mysterium fidei*, am i correct?

I had typed a post regarding the analogy you proposed, but lost it. It had a good preface, too, something along the lines of knowing that you dont want to get wrapped up in the intricacies of the analogy and miss the point of the analogy. But, I wanted to opine that I thought the analogy suffered from a fatal flaw that made it unusable as applied to transubstantiation.

The reason is that when we say that the tree is present in the acorn, we are saying that that the acorn and the tree are the same substance, being the same particular living organism (of the species we denote as “oak”). The reason we can say the tree is present is because it is the same substance, it is potentially present and the acorn is actually present. Because of this we dont say that the tree is physically present (i.e there is no tree inside an acorn, with trunk and branches, etc).

But when you go on in the analogy to say that the “physical reality” of the tree is present we run into a insurmountable difficulty. This is because you wish to link the term “physical reality” with substance. But, as I mentioned above, the substance of the tree isnt “present” in the acorn as a substance . . They are identical substances.

This problem is compounded because when the Pope used the term “physical reality” he meant precisely what we want to avoid in the analogy, conveying the idea of the whole thing with its parts is present (i.e a tree). . . He wanted to convey in fact that the whole Christ, with his parts, are present.

In sum (though this is a little confused because im recreating a lost post) when you attempt to distinguish physical reality from physically present in your acorn / tree analogy, i beleive you at same time empty the content of the term “physical reality” as used in transubstantiation.

VC

 

[ivebeenshown]

BTW, Jesus is not present physically in the Eucharist; His body is not present “physically” – neither His whole body or just one cell.

Right… the physical properties are called the ‘accidents’ and those are exactly what remain!