Trans- vs. Consubstantiation

[Gabriel_of_12]

This actually makes sense (at least in my mind) when one compares the Latin vs English words of consecration.

What makes sense? Wycliffe’s Consubstantiation? Please clarify?

I admit Wycliffe put a very good stance for Consubstantiation by stating in the Incarnation God’s presence did not destroy the flesh in Jesus and then he applied this same concept to the consecrated species of bread and wine,not being destroyed or changed in the presence of Jesus body and blood.

But here is how Transubstantiation wins the day; When the Word of God became flesh, that flesh was not destroyed that flesh or body which Jesus took upon himself is the body God prepared for him. Jesus perfected that humanity, a change did in fact occurr, when God touched flesh, God perfected it thus a substantial change occurred. Whereby all other flesh remained fallen nature, until baptism.

So when Jesus the Word of God made flesh said; “This is my body” Jesus did not cohabit his presence with the bread and wine, Jesus perfectly substantially changed the bread and wine into his eternal perfected presence.

Bread and wine by themselves cannot save our humanity, it only nourishes the flesh. But by Transubstantiation, the consecrated bread and wine have taken on a substantial change into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus presence which does give the faithful eternal life.

Peace be with you

 

[mattwilliams]

I’m not sure if this subforum is for discussion of non-Catholic faiths, or for non-Catholics to discuss faith, but here goes.
On the issue of transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation in the Eucharist, if I remember correctly, transubstantiation asserts that Christ is actually present in communion, while consubstantiation states that He is only metaphorically present. I know we’re not going to resolve a centuries-old dispute in this thread, but I do have two questions about this.
Firstly, isn’t the next time that Jesus comes to Earth the Second Coming?
And secondly, in Luke 22:19, Jesus says, “do this in remembrance of me.” If we are only remembering Christ by regularly taking Communion, then why would He actually be present? Or is it that since God is omnipresent, and He and Christ are both part of the Trinity, Christ is also always present everywhere?

Hello, friend! I am a Baptist, in the process of converting to Catholicism, and have recently been able to reconcile the Eucharist with my previous beliefs. Allow me to share them with you.

Your scripture quote was my main defense against transubstantiation. But, there are many other scriptures upholding transubstantiation:

John 6:56-57 “For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.”

This was Jesus’ response to the Jews after telling them that his flesh is the word, and they were confused about it. Instead of clarifying by saying that what he had said was metaphor, and he wasn’t REALLY talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood, he responded with verses 56-57.

The church’s philosophy is that the substance of the Eucharistic elements is wholly changed, but the empirical composition (aka the “accidents” of the elements) is unchanged. This is akin to this metaphor: A hat is made of cloth, thread, ink, glue, etc. But, the cloth isn’t a hat. Nor is the thread. When all of the individual components come together in a certain way, their function is changed. They are now a hat, even though they are still cloth, glue, thread, etc.

 

[ProVobis]

What makes sense? Wycliffe’s Consubstantiation? Please clarify?

It’s all in the translation, according to certain writers like Omlor et al.

Very simply put, in HOC est enim Corpus Meum, clearly the neuter HOC refers to the neuter Corpus (body) and not the feminine PANEM (bread), which would require HAEC not HOC. The distinction in the demonstrative is completely lost in the (Wycliffe’s?) English and “this” becomes very ambiguous and requires further explanation, which you have nicely done btw. However it is not surprising to me that some (even Catholics) have used the ambiguity to promote “consubstantiation,” whereas in the Latin (or Greek, for that matter) there is no ambiguity.

A similar case can be made for the consecration of the blood but I’ll leave the exercise of using the demonstrative up to the reader. I think I’ve made my point.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

It’s all in the translation, according to certain writers like Omlor et al.

Very simply put, in HOC est enim Corpus Meum, clearly the neuter HOC refers to the neuter Corpus (body) and not the feminine PANEM (bread), which would require HAEC not HOC. The distinction in the demonstrative is completely lost in the (Wycliffe’s?) English and “this” becomes very ambiguous and requires further explanation, which you have nicely done btw. However it is not surprising to me that some (even Catholics) have used the ambiguity to promote “consubstantiation,” whereas in the Latin (or Greek, for that matter) there is no ambiguity.

A similar case can be made for the consecration of the blood but I’ll leave the exercise of using the demonstrative up to the reader. I think I’ve made my point.

Thank you that is an excellent perspective:thumbsup:

On a side note to the “translation” deals with the scriptural text “Do this in rememberance of me”. Protestants and non-catholic christians have taken the English translation once again to interpret it’s meaning to call to memberance of the event in mind thereby leading to a symbolic gesture act or to repeat the act in calling to remember what Jesus did in the past.

Paul insist’s that the Church take in the Sacred Tradition handed down along with Sacred Scripture.

Paul uses the Greek word “anamnesis” as an act by means which something from the Spirit world can be emodied in this physical world. Anamnesis brings the presence of Jesus resurrected body, blood, soul and divinity made presence in our physical world to partake communion with our God in His perfected Eucharist, which appears to our flesh as bread and wine, but as Jesus said, which the flesh is to no avail, but “it is the Spirit that gives life” during the bread of life discourse John 6:63

There is still another translation that cut’s even deeper in the Catholic apostolic faith in the Eucharist. This anamnesis reaches back further in Paul’s teaching from the Hebrew understanding of rememberance which is Zikaron, Paul’s Hebrew faith celebrated in the passover of Zikaron, makes his Eucharist celebration not only a spiritual reality from anamnesis but a physical reality that brings the Eucharist real presence.

When Paul uses the Greek Anamnesis with the Hebrew passover faith from Zikaron in his Eucharist, Paul celebrates the heavenly presence that comes to us in the physical presence, taken that past event of the last supper which is made present from Zikaron only through the Eucharist. It’s this combination “says the Church” when we profess Jesus body, blood, soul and divinity real presence in the blessed Sacrament.

The English translation of “Do this in rememberance of me” loses it’s true apostolic faith expression without the sacred Tradition attached to it, that is handed down to us from the apostles themselves.

Peace be with you

 

[ProVobis]

The English translation of “Do this in rememberance of me” loses it’s true apostolic faith expression without the sacred Tradition attached to it, that is handed down to us from the apostles themselves.

There seems to be a lot of ambiguity here as well. I’m going to have to do some research on this. Thanks for the help; it’s been good.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There seems to be a lot of ambiguity here as well. I’m going to have to do some research on this. Thanks for the help; it’s been good.

Good to share with you;

If it helps the CCC paragraphs 1354, 1362, 1103 confirm all of what I stated in regards to Anamnesis and 1106 brings it home.

Peace be with you

 

[O.S.Luke]

If you haven’t read the Marburg Colloquy, it is worth the time (Luther vs Zwingli). In German, it reads more… earthy.

 

[GKC]

From what I understand, consubstantiation is the belief that rather than Jesus Christ’s Body and Blood taking the place of the bread and wine at Mass, the Body and Blood of the Lord are present “within” the bread and wine. It’s similar to Transubstantiation, but it’s slightly different. It’s believed by the Lutherans and Anglicans (I believe) please correct me if I’m wrong.

You are wrong.

GKC

 

[ConstantineTG]

There seems to be a lot of ambiguity here as well. I’m going to have to do some research on this. Thanks for the help; it’s been good.

Gabriel was spot on there. Anamnesis should be compared in usage in the Septuagint, back to where Elijah called God to remembrance when he prayed for the Sacrifice that was doused with water to be lit. It was written in the Greek as an “anamnesis”.

I don’t think it is any different from our human concept of “remembrance”, but because God is divine and all-powerful, when He remembers, stuff happen. Our remembrance is just a recollection, a reenactment in our imagination through our Memory. When God remembers, what is past is brought to the present reality.

That is why in the East when someone passes from this life we say, “Memory Eternal.” For us, our memories are temporal, they fade. Only God’s memory is eternal, and when one who dies remains in God’s memory, that person lives forever. Not in an imaginative state, God’s memory itself is a reality.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel was spot on there. Anamnesis should be compared in usage in the Septuagint, back to where Elijah called God to remembrance when he prayed for the Sacrifice that was doused with water to be lit. It was written in the Greek as an “anamnesis”.

I don’t think it is any different from our human concept of “remembrance”, but because God is divine and all-powerful, when He remembers, stuff happen. Our remembrance is just a recollection, a reenactment in our imagination through our Memory. When God remembers, what is past is brought to the present reality.

That is why in the East when someone passes from this life we say, “Memory Eternal.” For us, our memories are temporal, they fade. Only God’s memory is eternal, and when one who dies remains in God’s memory, that person lives forever. Not in an imaginative state, God’s memory itself is a reality.

Wonderful post ConstantineTG; Thanks a million, your simplified (version) commentary to a contemplative subject blows my commentary out of the water.

All things considered, I pray it helps us all to “remember” to contemplate this reality that you have revealed in simplicity everywhere and anytime especially God’s presence in our Eucharistic Liturgies.

Peace be with you

 

[ConstantineTG]

Also that every covenant with God is accompanied by a “remembrance”. Remember that the rainbow is God’s sign of His covenant with Noah. The Passover Meal is the remembrance of God’s covenant with Moses. Circumcision is the remembrance of God’s covenant with Abraham. And the Eucharist is the remembrance of God’s covenant with all of us through Christ.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Also that every covenant with God is accompanied by a “remembrance”. Remember that the rainbow is God’s sign of His covenant with Noah. The Passover Meal is the remembrance of God’s covenant with Moses. Circumcision is the remembrance of God’s covenant with Abraham. And the Eucharist is the remembrance of God’s covenant with all of us through Christ.

Amen, and let us not forget and remember the eternal covenant with King David; So as to live in the present in The eternal Kingdom of heaven which has come upon us.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Greetings Jon;

Consubstantiation was introduced long before it was defeated by the fourth Lateran Council 1215 with Transubstantiation.

A protestant reformer in the very beginning Wycliffe is the one who carried the consubstantiation teaching. Wycliffe taught “When God was joined to human nature, the presence of the divinity did not destroy the humanity. Likewise the body of Christ is indeed present in the bread without destroying it…The body of Christ is present in communion. But so is the bread”.

Another reformer John Huss took up all of Wycliffe’s protestant views opposing the Catholic Church. Although John Huss’s main disagreement was that communion should always be given in both species.

What is telling is that Wycliffe’s followers in the “Lollards” took with them Wycliffe’s teaching throughout protestantism well into the 16th century.

It could be the mixture of these Lollard’s in protestant circles kept the heretical teaching of Consubstantiation alive among the different protestant circles, but that’s my opinion.

Later we find Luther defending the already condemned teachings of John Huss in a debate who followed Wycliffe’s views. But it is not clear if Consubstantiation was defended by Luther.

Here is a quote from a non-catholic (protestant) author Wayne Jackson of the Christian Courier.

“Consubstantiation” is a term commonly applied to the Lutheran concept of the communion supper, though some modern Lutheran theologians reject the use of this term because of its ambiguity. The expression, however, is generally associated with Luther. The idea is that in the communion, the body and blood of Christ, and the bread and wine, coexist in union with each other. “Luther illustrated it by the analogy of the iron put into the fire whereby both fire and iron are united in the red-hot iron and yet each continues unchanged” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, F.L. Cross, Ed., London: Oxford, 1958, p. 337). Wycliffe Triology IV, 6,10, Luther (Walch XX 1288)

We find historical writers attributing Consubstantiation to Martin Luther’s view of the Eucharist when the species of bread and wine remain as bread and wine along with the presence of Jesus body without ever having to use the word Consubstantiation.

Salusa’s quote; “Sacramental Union is a doctrine of the real presence that doesn’t resort to Aristotelian substance and accidents, but still asserts that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ in with and under the bread and wine.”

Sacramental Union? Is that the official term used in Lutheran doctrine to describe the RP? That sounds very Catholic but Iam not sure if it contains the same Sacramental understanding of the Greek “anamnesis” derived and supported by the Hebrew understanding of zikaron. Simplifed when and what ever God’s presence touches a full substantial Change has occurred to the subject.

The description Salusa applied to Sacramental Union ="the Body and Blood of Christ in with and under the bread and wine" Does not appear to be defining a sacramental change has occurred because the presence remains co-habiting in with and under ( the existing species) of the bread and wine.

I have read some late theological understanding’s between our theologians and I agree we are gaining ground to better understanding of each one’s position and I don’t refute a Lutheran’s faith in the RP, what is being revealed here is each one’s understanding from a lay person’s faith in the RP and differences.

What is your take on Aristotles definition of Transubstantiation and the Catholic Church’s definition of Transubstantiation? It is suggested that the Catholic Church holds to Aristotles definition of transubstantiation which the Church never does.

Peace be with you

Hi Gabriel,
I missed this post, so sorry I’m late.
I think the way the CC presents its understanding of Transubstantiation has changed since the Reformation era. What Luther heard is different than what we hear today, and I have thanks to you for clearing some things up for me about it.
My take is that modern Catholic theologians, must my opinion here, have done a great service by moving the discussion away from Aristotle and more toward Christ. I see the CC’s definition as being, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, because He says that’s what happens - “Take and eat. This is my body, given for you”.
To this, a Lutheran will say, absolutely, Amen!! And if the Catholic Church wishes to speak of substances and accidents in order to confirm and strengthen the faith in the certain knowledge that it is, indeed, His body and blood, then I say Amen to this as well.
My Tradition doesn’t describe it that way, and we describe it in a different manner, but too say it is, indeed, His body and blood.

On a side note, you mentioned Wycliffe and Huss. My understanding is that consubstantiation is also linked very closely to John Duns Scotus, though you may know more about that than me.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel,
I missed this post, so sorry I’m late.
I think the way the CC presents its understanding of Transubstantiation has changed since the Reformation era. What Luther heard is different than what we hear today, and I have thanks to you for clearing some things up for me about it.
My take is that modern Catholic theologians, must my opinion here, have done a great service by moving the discussion away from Aristotle and more toward Christ. I see the CC’s definition as being, the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, because He says that’s what happens - “Take and eat. This is my body, given for you”.
To this, a Lutheran will say, absolutely, Amen!! And if the Catholic Church wishes to speak of substances and accidents in order to confirm and strengthen the faith in the certain knowledge that it is, indeed, His body and blood, then I say Amen to this as well.
My Tradition doesn’t describe it that way, and we describe it in a different manner, but too say it is, indeed, His body and blood.

On a side note, you mentioned Wycliffe and Huss. My understanding is that consubstantiation is also linked very closely to John Duns Scotus, though you may know more about that than me.

Jon

Thanks Jon, good to hear from you. Every time I read your posts on this subject, placing all definitions and terminology aside, I sense we both arrive at the same faith of our dear Lord Jesus Christ real presence.

I would like to note however, that Whenever the Catholic church reveals our faith publicly and binds it upon all believers as doctrine, she has always done this to protect that what is already revealed by Jesus, believed in faith, handed down and taught from sacred scripture.

The Catholic Church exercises her Keys of binding and loosing not to dictate but to protect these divine revelations from heresy, and heretics. Now heretics are those members of the Church who already know the true teachings and wish to change them or reject them from another man made teaching, winds of doctrine.

Specifically Transubstantiation is the term used to defeat those scientific minds who were coming into the new mechanical age of knowledge and denying the True presence of Jesus in the Eucharist as hocus pocus. Many of the flock were being decieved while the Catholic faith in the Eucharist came under attack in the West by new science and natural knowledge.

The Church defended her divine revealed teachings against these attackers on their own terms with “Transubstantiation”, and calmed the seas among the faithful. The same formula was used centuries earlier when the early Church developed and invented new terminology in a new age that defines what was already “apostolic” believed with Trinity, Theotokos, Hypostatic union, the greek “ousis’s” etc.

These new invented terminologies came in their own time and age that defeated all heresies and heretics holding to every wind of doctrine invented by men. The doctrine of the Eucharist is never changed with Transubstantiation. Transubstantiation defeats all heresies and those who attack this revelation from God.

A lay person does not necessarily have to have a scientific mind or doctrated in understanding transubstantiation. A lay faithful has to discern that the bread and wine are the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ real presence and no longer bread and wine after the consecration, which “Transubstantiation” defines as defined by the Catholic Church.

Aristotle’s transubstantiation still has the same accidents remaining from the same substance.

Not so with the Catholic Church’s definition of Transubstantiation, she has the accidents of bread and wine taken on a substantial change in substance, whereby the miracle is revealed from our faith that God has done this; made the accidents of bread and wine truly present to our flesh, although this bread and wine appear as real to our flesh, Christ reveals here, “To the flesh is of no avail”, “It is the Spirit that gives life.”

Thus transubstantiation raises the carnal mind to faith, that the true eternal reality of Jesus presence in the Eucharist that does not return to dust, as natural bread and wine does, It is the Spirit that gives true life to these, when Jesus possesses them to become his body and blood, so that we can commune “In Him, with Him and through Him” we can give God all honor, praise and glory with thanksgiving (Eucharistia) to our almighty God, whom we dare say “Father”.

The church only teaches what Jesus has revealed and what the Holy spirit recalls to the memory of the Church to teach, feed and tend the flock of Jesus. Transubstantiation never changes the apostolic faith.

Transubstantiation has never changed. Presenting in every age since it’s clarification, has taken more clearer understanding to what Trent confirmed the teachings as a “substance change” taken place, defining the term “substance” that can never be measured or quantified, that is my broken quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, but does not change his meaning of Trent’s substance definition of transubstantiation.

Peace be with you