O
on_the_hill
Guest
Are there non-Catholic religions that have a doctrine of transubstantiation? (aside from our brethren in the Orthodox Churches)
- Status
K
Kliska
Guest
Just for clarification; do you mean non-Catholic Christians or non-Christian religions? For example, some Anglicans do indeed believe in transubstantiation. If you are asking outside of Christianity you’d be asking about a belief rooted in Aristotelian philosophy in a general sense, and not about the Eucharist specifically (as most other religions don’t have the Eucharist obviously).
K
Kanade
Guest
My Anglican church believed in transubstantiation. It isn’t an official doctrine of the Anglican communion and it’s very much a minority viewpoint, but some do hold to it.
P
peter26
Guest
Asides from some Anglicans, I think Lutherans believe something similar? Orthodox actually believe in consubstantiation which is similar.
W
Wesrock
Guest
Orthodox don’t necessarily believe in consubstantiation. While scholastic terminology and Aristotlean metaphysics aren’t necessarily embraced, some Orthodox have specifically used the word transubstantiation or described it as a full change such that the bread and wine are no longer present. It’s moreso the Aristotlean metaphysics that is objected in favor of leaving it as a mystery, though the Church has not defined Aristotlean metaphysics as dogma, it should be said.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Non-Catholic Christians. Thank you for asking me to clarify. My bad
S
steido01
Guest
Lutherans believe in neither Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation. The reason being that Lutherans are firmly opposed to describing the mystery of the sacrament in Aristotelian terms. They prefer the more nebulous term ‘Sacramental Union,’ which is a mere acknowledgement that Christ is truly present. Obviously, this means they acknowledge a change to have occurred.
The Lutheran-Catholic Dialogues have a fantastic section on the Eucharist showing a tremendous amount of agreement, for those so inclined to read further. Best part is that the section dealing with this topic, Round III, had representatives from Confessional Lutherans, who are known to be a bit less… ecumenical than the more theologically liberal bodies.
M
MichelleP12
Guest
Since Catholics only have the true Transubstantiation, we are the only ones who also have Adoration?
I mean for consubstantiation or sacramental union, that means that they believe in Our Lord co-existing with the bread and wine?
I mean for consubstantiation or sacramental union, that means that they believe in Our Lord co-existing with the bread and wine?
I kneel at the altar in adoration every time I receive.
D
Duane1966
Guest
I think he means Perpetual Adoration and Adoration chapels.
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
I wish I was more familiar with the Eastern churches but I believe there are churches like the Coptic, which are not Orthodox, but which have true sacraments. None of our Protestant brethren have transubstantiation as none have a valid priesthood.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Thanks for the first part. As for the second–no, no, no, I didn’t mean for my post to go that direction.
W
Wesrock
Guest
It should be noted that transubstantiation was accepted and defined prior to the acceptance by the Church of Aristotlean and Thomistic metaphysics and those metaphysics are not part of the dogma. The dogma is simply that the bread and wine fully change into the body and blood of Christ and the appearance of bread and wine remain.
Hi Duane
Yes. I’m sure that’s what he means. I just think it important to point out that adoration of the Christ in the sacrament is not limited to Perpetual Adoration in the Catholic Chirch, nor is adoration of any type the prerequisite for His presence in the sacrament.
Jon
F
FabiusMaximus
Guest
Aristotle aside, would the term transubstantiation be accurate in terms of at least describing what Lutherans believe occur during the consecration? I know Lutherans believe in the real presence, and that the elements change, so while you’re hesitant in describing the mystery, would the term itself be an accurate description? You believe that the substance of the elements change to the body and blood of Christ, even though the appearance of the elements remains the same?
P
PJM
Guest
V
Vico
Guest
So transubstantiation means that Christ is substantially present in the Eucharistic species, “sacramentally present to us in his own substance” with the very same body as is present in heaven and as was born of the Virgin. Christ is present in heaven “according to the natural mode of existing” (iuxta modum existendi naturalem) and present in the Eucharistic species in a “sacramental” mode.
Council of Trent
CHAPTER I.
On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist.
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. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,
– that our Saviour Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,
– recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,
– it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognising, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ.
history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html
S
steido01
Guest
Some Lutherans have and do express an appreciation for Transubstantiation over Consubstantiation if ever they were forced to choose between the two (Trans. does seem to have the “higher” respect for the Sacrament than Cons.) but, again, neither is a correct way of thinking according to Lutheranism. The Bread is still present, even when it is revealed (or “changed”) to be Christ’s Body. Same for the Wine and His Blood. After all, Paul refers to them as Bread and Wine even after consecration. The emphasis should be less on trying to explain how it happens, and more on the fact that God is truly coming to us. It doesn’t increase our understanding of Him or His Grace to explain how this mysterious union comes to be, from the Lutheran perspective. We should simply take Christ at His word.
I know that’s not the answer you’re hoping for, but that’s as far as I’m comfortable ecumenizing.
- Status