Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, Sacramental Union

[KjetilK]

How is it any different than what consubstantation is as defined?

It isn’t. When we analyse the Latin word consubstantiatio, in contradistinction from transubstantiatio (that the substance of bread and wine is changed, transformed), we see that it means nothing more than the fact that two substances are “present together” (in this case bread and the body of Christ and wine and the blood of Christ). If someone wants to add to that, and make the claim that such a process would result in the creation if some ‘3rd substance,’ that’s a different question altogether.

 

[benjohnson]

I take it from your statement that you could not find any philosophical language in their definition of sacramental union that you have not had time to read the whole thing.

There’s even more of such language, and especially in the arguments between Luther and Zwingli.

I would say that there’s a difference between what we profess with certainty, and the words used to explain for those who doubt.

 

[benjohnson]

I" Both Martin Luther and the FC state the substance of Christ’s body and the substance of the bread are present together in the Lord’s Supper. If any Lutheran theologian has a different opinion regarding transubstantiation and sacramental union, his opinion is not in conformity with the FC.

You’re quite correct, but I think you have to understand Luther’s understanding of FC in the context of his famous argument with Zwingli.

Basically, Luther and Zwingli were trading philosophical arguments and (frankly) Luther was losing the battle - Zwingli was incredibly clever with his arguments, pointing out that (paraphrased) “if Jesus was sitting at the right hand of the Father, then how can he be in bread and wine?”

Luther was losing the argument horribly - Philipp Melanchthon began to side with Zwingli!

Luther (and I) don’t have any answer for that - it clearly say that in scripture. Zwingli wasn’t done - he pounded into Luther all sorts of very reasonable arguments on why Luther was wrong.

Luther’s only argument wasn’t an argument at all. Luther professes that Jesus meant what he said - “This is my body.” And he wouldn’t budge from it.

The FC is likewise - there are reasonable arguments given certainly. But what we hold onto is as I quoted above - we “conclude and respond” that “This is my body.”

 

[benjohnson]

The Council of Trent:

That section of Trent was defiantly needed in both our churches - at the time some of the faithful had the habit of sneaking away the Body and using it as a personal talisman of sort.

 

[Mikefitzgerald]

The following paragraphs are from the Catechism. You can read the relevant section in more detail at the following link -

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

We believe that when the priest asks the Holy Spirit to come upon these gifts (the bread and wine), and make them holy, that somehow they become the body and blood of Christ. But untill that time they’re just ordinary bread and wine.

After consecration, and when the mass is over, we don’t throw them out unused wafers but store them in a ciborium, for use at the next mass. Protestants in most cases would probably just throw any excess cubes of bread into the bin after the service, since they see it as merely symbolic.

The ministers of communion drink any remaining wine left in the cups so that it too is not wasted. This is not usually very much, and quite often the cups are empty anyway before the last parishioners have completed the communion service.

Hi I’m new, Tell me, does Transubstantiation mean that we could Christ’s DNA from the host or the wine. This is a genuine question.

 

[cmodrmac]

here is the section in the Book of Common Prayer ( for Anglicans)

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped

so that is fairly clear regarding transubstantion -opposed

It is not merely a sign or a symbol, not merely a memorial, but a true sacrament in which the faithful do truly receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In this regard, Anglicanism and Rome are on the same page. Yet in the very next breath, Anglicanism is differentiated from Rome through a flat out rejection of transubstantiation.

HOWEVER:
many Anglicans believe in the real presence

 

[GKC]

here is the section in the Book of Common Prayer ( for Anglicans)

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped

so that is fairly clear regarding transubstantion -opposed

It is not merely a sign or a symbol, not merely a memorial, but a true sacrament in which the faithful do truly receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In this regard, Anglicanism and Rome are on the same page. Yet in the very next breath, Anglicanism is differentiated from Rome through a flat out rejection of transubstantiation.

HOWEVER:
many Anglicans believe in the real presence

The Articles, which you quote, are not normative for all Anglicans, though any Anglican may certainly affirm what they assert, or any competent authority may seek to impose their strictures on any compliant Anglicans who will accept them. Or not. Save only, in the case of clergy of the Church of England, IAW the oft cited Parliamentary Act of 1571. In a purely technical sense

Hence, many Anglicans do, indeed, believe in the Real Presence. And nothing forbids them, generally, from also accepting the concept of transubstantiation. As, likewise, there is nothing to require them to do so.

GKC

 

[Duane1966]

here is the section in the Book of Common Prayer ( for Anglicans)

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.

The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped

so that is fairly clear regarding transubstantion -opposed

It is not merely a sign or a symbol, not merely a memorial, but a true sacrament in which the faithful do truly receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. In this regard, Anglicanism and Rome are on the same page. Yet in the very next breath, Anglicanism is differentiated from Rome through a flat out rejection of transubstantiation.

HOWEVER:
many Anglicans believe in the real presence

I may be confused, but what part of your post shows that transubstantiation does not happen? It says it is repugnant to Holy Scripture, but what exact part of Scripture?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

There’s even more of such language, and especially in the arguments between Luther and Zwingli.

I would say that there’s a difference between what we profess with certainty, and the words used to explain for those who doubt.

I suppose then the question would be, if you are still arguing that the Lutherans merely wished to affirm the bare doctrine of the real presence and not impose a new doctrine contrary to transubstantiation, why is it that the Lutherans were making these arguments against the “papists” who have always affirmed the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist? Why did they insist contrary to Catholic doctrine that the bread is not transformed into Christ’s body, but merely united to the substance of his body? Why did the Lutherans oppose the teaching of the ecumenical councils of Lateran, Florence and Trent? Why did they allege that Christ was not present in the sacrament outside the liturgy, such as in processions and when it is taken to the sick, contrary to the universal and perennial understanding of the Church? Why would they oppose these things (and more) unless they doubted them?

I would hope that the those who subscribe to the Formula of Concord believe what is contained in it with certainty. The FC proposes its eucharistic teaching for belief by all the faithful. They appear so confident in the truth of their doctrine and in the error of their opponents (viz., the sacramentalists and the papists) that they say so boldly, “with heart and mouth we reject and condemn as false, erroneous, and misleading all errors which are not in accordance with, but contrary and opposed to, the doctrine above mentioned and founded upon God’s Word, such as…” and then proceed to list the beliefs of the Catholic Church. How could they speak in such a manner and not be professing with certainty?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Hi I’m new, Tell me, does Transubstantiation mean that we could Christ’s DNA from the host or the wine. This is a genuine question.

Presumably you are talking about DNA sequencing or something like that. No, of course Christ’s DNA is present since the whole Christ is present, but the sensible appearance is only that of bread and wine. The only possible exception would be if God performed a special miracle where Christ’s body and blood actually appeared as flesh and blood, such as with the Lanciano miracle.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

That section of Trent was defiantly needed in both our churches - at the time some of the faithful had the habit of sneaking away the Body and using it as a personal talisman of sort.

What section of Trent are you referring to? I think you might have mistakenly read one of the quotations of the Formula of Concord as being from Trent. Trent does not condemn any such practice. It only says.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that, in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship, even external of latria; and is, consequently, neither to be venerated with a special festive solemnity, nor to be solemnly borne about in processions, according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of holy church; or, is not to be proposed publicly to the people to be adored, and that the adorers thereof are idolators; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that it is not lawful for the sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacrarium, but that, immediately after consecration, it must necessarily be distributed amongst those present; or, that it is not lawful that it be carried with honour to the sick; let him be anathema.

On the other hand the Formula of Concord condemns the Catholic belief that Christ is present in the sacrament “when the bread is enclosed in the pyx or is carried about for display and adoration,” and therefore that the sacrament should be shown the adoration commanded by the Council of Trent. Suffice to say, these teachings are in direct contradiction with each other. After all, the Council of Trent was responding to the claims of various Protestants and the Lutherans in the Formula of Concord were addressing, among others, the “papists.”

 

[benjohnson]

I suppose then the question would be, if you are still arguing that the Lutherans merely wished to affirm the bare doctrine of the real presence and not impose a new doctrine contrary to transubstantiation, why is it that the Lutherans were making these arguments against the “papists” who have always affirmed the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist?

I think I understand what you’re saying - that if I read the Formula of Concord, I scratch my head and wonder “why exactly we’re we being so grumpy about the Catholics?”

As I’ve heard it explained to me is that we’re looking through modern eyes where we view Transubstantiation as a affirmation of the Real Presence, and were in the Mass is a re-presentation of the once and final sacrifice of our Lord. I think we also ascribed some of abuses of the Eucharist (for example, spiriting away hosts for personal use) as springing from Eucharistic adoration.

I’ve been told that the general Lutheran understanding of the Catholic position was that Transubstantiation was perhaps an alternative to the understanding of the Real Presence, and where it was felt that the priests were claiming a more extensive role in the Sacrifice of the Mass.

So while I think there’s much to work out between out two communions, our complaints about Catholic understanding and practice need to understood in the context of the times, and hence are not so strident as they seem.

 

[Mikefitzgerald]

Presumably you are talking about DNA sequencing or something like that. No, of course Christ’s DNA is present since the whole Christ is present, but the sensible appearance is only that of bread and wine. The only possible exception would be if God performed a special miracle where Christ’s body and blood actually appeared as flesh and blood, such as with the Lanciano miracle.

Thanks, but after transubstantiation, has it ever been tried, i.e. to get find the DNA of Christ just to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. Again a genuine question.

 

[Kliska]

Thanks, but after transubstantiation, has it ever been tried, i.e. to get find the DNA of Christ just to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. Again a genuine question.

You mean scientifically? Yes, it has been tried, and no, there is no scientific evidence that it actually changes to blood and flesh (or hence, contain dna). Through philosophical language the Catholic church teaches the accidents remain the same (what can be seen, touched, tasted, etc…) while the essence or substance changes. You have to understand (and agree with) the philosophical language used to “get” why the bread still looks likes bread yet is believed to be Christ. Aristotle (but not him alone) taught about form, substance, accidents, etc… and what makes a particular thing, that particular thing.

Obviously, being a non-Catholic I don’t agree with it, but it’s important to understand the explanation to realize why a Catholic believes there will be no DNA of Christ in the accidents of bread, or wine.

 

[Mikefitzgerald]

You mean scientifically? Yes, it has been tried, and no, there is no scientific evidence that it actually changes to blood and flesh (or hence, contain dna). Through philosophical language the Catholic church teaches the accidents remain the same (what can be seen, touched, tasted, etc…) while the essence or substance changes. You have to understand (and agree with) the philosophical language used to “get” why the bread still looks likes bread yet is believed to be Christ. Aristotle (but not him alone) taught about form, substance, accidents, etc… and what makes a particular thing, that particular thing.

Obviously, being a non-Catholic I don’t agree with it, but it’s important to understand the explanation to realize why a Catholic believes there will be no DNA of Christ in the accidents of bread, or wine.

If you look up the Lanciano miracle, you’ll find that scientists proved it real. However that was a miracle.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks, but after transubstantiation, has it ever been tried, i.e. to get find the DNA of Christ just to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. Again a genuine question.

I’m not convinced that this would or would not prove Transubstantiation. I’m not convinced that this is what Catholics even mean by Transubstantiation, though I will let them answer that.
My general response to the attempt of proving or disproving Transubstantiation with a DNA test is that it inappropriately puts Christ to the test. Christ’s presence is supernatural and sacramental. It is true, real, and physical in that way. That is the mystery.

Jon

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

I think I understand what you’re saying - that if I read the Formula of Concord, I scratch my head and wonder “why exactly we’re we being so grumpy about the Catholics?”

As I’ve heard it explained to me is that we’re looking through modern eyes where we view Transubstantiation as a affirmation of the Real Presence, and were in the Mass is a re-presentation of the once and final sacrifice of our Lord. I think we also ascribed some of abuses of the Eucharist (for example, spiriting away hosts for personal use) as springing from Eucharistic adoration.

I’ve been told that the general Lutheran understanding of the Catholic position was that Transubstantiation was perhaps an alternative to the understanding of the Real Presence, and where it was felt that the priests were claiming a more extensive role in the Sacrifice of the Mass.

So while I think there’s much to work out between out two communions, our complaints about Catholic understanding and practice need to understood in the context of the times, and hence are not so strident as they seem.

Perhaps the reason you are scratching your head is that you are not of the same mind as the Formula of Concord.

It is impossible to say that the Formula of Concord, while not relevant today, is relevant and correct in the context of the times of its composition. For one thing, it is very relevant today, because it is foundational to Lutheran belief and teaching in the present day. It remains a confessional document for the major American Lutheran bodies. More importantly, the truth of the sort of statements it makes is not dependent on historical context. When the Lutherans say, “[by these words], the papistical transubstantiation may be rejected and the sacramental union of the unchanged essence of the bread and of the body of Christ indicated,” they mean exactly what they say. The “essence” of the bread remains unchanged in the sacrament. There is no doubt about the meaning of their words. They clearly explain the terms “substance,” “accident” and so on early on in the Formula of Concord and indicate that they are using them according to the universal understanding of these terms and even say that they are necessary to explain correct doctrine. As far as the FC is concerned, it does not even really matter what these “papists” taught. They are firmly rejecting (“with heart and mouth”) one position they clearly define in the FC (that the substance of bread is changed into the substance of Christ’s body), and proposing another definition (that the substance of the bread remains unchanged in the sacrament) for belief by all the faithful. This doesn’t really fit your narrative that the Catholic view is not false and erroneous according to the teaching of the FC, which explicitly states that the Catholic view is “false, erroneous, and misleading.”

You cite an alleged practice of people stealing hosts to keep as talismans. What evidence do you have for this being a widespread practice, much less one condoned by the Church? Old Protestant polemics? You heard it in a Lutheran sermon somewhere? If this allegation is going to be meaningful evidence for discussion, you will have to cite firm evidence. Now of course, if someone without authorization steals away the sacrament in their pocket, they are violating the law of the Church and treating the Sacrament with gross irreverence, but that does not justify denying, as the FC did, that Christ remains truly present in such a situation or denying transubstantiation. But there are many cases when it is good to reserve the Sacrament outside of the mass. Many churches now have “perpetual adoration” chapels where the Sacrament is reserved for public adoration around the clock. The pastor of our parish has a private chapel in the rectory (located a good drive from the church grounds) where the sacrament is reserved for adoration outside of the mass. Catholics, many times laymen, also take the sacrament from the Church to visit the sick so that they may receive the sacrament, and there is no requirement imposed that there must be an abbreviated service (the official directives of the LCMS) as if to re-consecrate or, even worse, to simulate re-consecration of the host, since Catholics believe that the real presence remains as long as the sacramental species remains.

Again, if you are scratching your head about the “grumpiness” on the part of the FC toward Catholics, it is likely because you do not agree with the Formula of Concord. Do you believe that

(1) In the Blessed Sacrament, the substance of the bread remains unchanged?
(2) That Christ is not present in the Sacrament during Eucharistic processions or when the Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Both statements, among others, are the explicit teaching of the Formula of Concord. So it is distressing to me as a Catholic that you are trying to argue that I shouldn’t reject the FC and that the teaching of the FC is not incompatible with the doctrines of my Church when the FC explicitly, by name, by definition and by counter-definition, rejects the very beliefs that have always been held and taught by my Church. I absolutely will not accept the insulting language of the FC. I firmly believe that Christ was sacramentally present with us during our Eucharist procession outside the church on Christ the King Sunday. I firmly believe that Christ is just as present in the sacrament when reserved in the tabernacle as on the altar during the mass, and I take objection to the suggestion of the Formula of Concord that Catholics are performing idolatry when we reverence the Most Holy Sacrament.

Not as a Catholic, but just as a person, it is distressing to me that you are going through such lengths to obfuscate the clear teaching of the Formula of Concord. It means what it says, and it would be hard-pressed for them to be more clear about their intention. If you agree with the Formula of Concord, I would disagree with you, but we could at least agree that we disagree and that your belief is not consonant with the Catholic faith.

If you disagree with what is stated in the Formula of Concord, reject it. You only owe to assent to it inasmuch as it teaches the truth. Jon has written hear about the difference between “quatenus” Lutherans and “quia” Lutherans. The former only subscribe to the Book of Concord insasmuch as it teaches the truth. Quia Lutherans on the other hand subscribe to the Book of Concord because it teaches the truth. If the FC is wrong and you know that it’s wrong, you cannot be a quia Lutheran. The FC was a product of its time, and the authors were fallible men who produced a fallible document. It should not be surprising that they made a mistake.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thanks, but after transubstantiation, has it ever been tried, i.e. to get find the DNA of Christ just to prove the doctrine of transubstantiation. Again a genuine question.

This question is similar to the one you asked above. It would not make sense to try and extract DNA from the Eucharist, since the doctrine of transubstantiation is that the change is not one of outward appearance, hence it says in the hymn Pange Lingua Gloriosi: praestet fides supplementum sensuum defectui. Christ is present whole and entire in the Sacrament and in the smallest piece, but the outward appearance is only bread, and that’s all that would be perceived in a scientific analysis. The only exception would be a special miracle like Lanciano where the outward appearance is changed, as I said earlier and which you also noted.

So has anyone ever tried? In the usual case, it would not make any sense to try, and probably it has never happened. In the case of Lanciano, I think that was subjected to some scientific examination. I have heard a priest say that from some eucharistic miracle, there was DNA extracted (I don’t know if it was Lanciano). So that’s the only answer that I can give you. I heard a priest off the top of his head say so as an aside in a conversation about something else.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

You mean scientifically? Yes, it has been tried, and no, there is no scientific evidence that it actually changes to blood and flesh (or hence, contain dna). Through philosophical language the Catholic church teaches the accidents remain the same (what can be seen, touched, tasted, etc…) while the essence or substance changes. You have to understand (and agree with) the philosophical language used to “get” why the bread still looks likes bread yet is believed to be Christ. Aristotle (but not him alone) taught about form, substance, accidents, etc… and what makes a particular thing, that particular thing.

Obviously, being a non-Catholic I don’t agree with it, but it’s important to understand the explanation to realize why a Catholic believes there will be no DNA of Christ in the accidents of bread, or wine.

You don’t have to be an Aristotelian to believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation or the way in which it uses the terms “substance” and “accident.” I don’t think anyone can be a Christian and deny the reality that these terms convey.