Transubstantiation VS. Consubstantiation

[FCEGM]

Actually Catholics can participate in Orthodox Holy Communion because the Vatican recognizes the Orthodox Church as having Apostolic Succession, therefore their Holy Communion is valid and authentic. However, a Catholic may only attend an Orthodox Church if no Catholic Mass is available, location is inaccessible, etc.

That’s correct from the Catholic pov, croix, but I believe the Orthodox usually don’t allow Catholics to receive. IOW, it’s permitted by the Catholics Church in the circumstances you’ve given, but not reciprocated.

 

[Genesius]

Actually Catholics can participate in Orthodox Holy Communion because the Vatican recognizes the Orthodox Church as having Apostolic Succession, therefore their Holy Communion is valid and authentic. However, a Catholic may only attend an Orthodox Church if no Catholic Mass is available, location is inaccessible, etc.

Although you are correct from a Catholic perspective, the tough part would be a Catholic receiving permission from Orthodox to receive. Unfortunately, it doesn’t always seem to be reciprocal.

 

[TFurd]

I hope not to sound like I’m telling people what they believe…I PROMISE you all I’m coming to this thread humble and ready to learn…but Martin Luther wrote an article in 1520 called “On The Babylonian Captivity Of The Church” in which he says:

*"…it is real bread and real wine, in which Christ’s real flesh and blood are present, not otherwise and not less really than they assume to be the case under their accidents."

“The two substances of fire and iron are so mingled in the heated iron that every part is both iron and fire. Why could not much rather Christ’s body be thus contained in every part of the substance of the bread?”

“Therefore it is with the sacrament even as it is with Christ. In order that divinity may dwell inHim, it is not necessary that the human nature be transubstantiated and divinity be contained under its accidents.”

“…the holy Fathers never once mentioned transbustantiation – certainly, a monstrous word for a monstrous idea --”

“I therefore permit every man to hold either of these views, as he chooses.”*

I have been reading this thread and would just really like to be able to understand the differences between consubstantiation and transubstantiation better. Initially, to me, it seemed to be a big difference, but people in this thread have said the ideas don’t conflict…? I promise you I’m coming at this with a spirit of complete humility and a desire for understanding – but could someone please explain this to me in relation to the source I sited above?

 

[ProVobis]

When dealing with Latin cognates, it may help to break the terms apart:

Transubstantiation:

tran (across, over, beyond, through, very)

• sub (under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly)
• stantis (past participle of stare, “to stand, to be”)
• English ending

Consubstantiation:

con (with, together)

• sub (under, inferior, secondary, less than, in place of, secretly)
• stantis (past participle of stare, “to stand, to be”)
• English ending

 

[TFurd]

Thanks ProVobis!

Those are great and very helpful information.

I find that I’m still a bit confused at what the Lutheran Church believes in regard to tran/con substantiation…earlier some posters said Lutherans did not believe in consubstantiation, but this writing says they do…could anyone clear that up for me?

 

[JonNC]

Thanks ProVobis!

Those are great and very helpful information.

I find that I’m still a bit confused at what the Lutheran Church believes in regard to tran/con substantiation…earlier some posters said Lutherans did not believe in consubstantiation, but this writing says they do…could anyone clear that up for me?

Try this link.

blogstuhl.blogspot.com/2008/05/lutherans-deny-consubstantiation.html

In some ways, even this is too explanatory for me. For me, the lord said the bread and wine are His body and blood. I believe that literally.

Jon

 

[Mikeoffaith]

Hi Jon,
I do pray that we may all soon be one. I have often read your posts and found them uplifting.
In regards to this thread, I have a several questions:

1. Am I correct in assuming you represent a rather conservative Lutheran outlook?
   Do your views regarding the Eucharist express the current official teaching of the Lutheran churches as a whole?
   Would you say they reflect the understanding professed by the majority of Lutherans?
2. After a service with Communion, how are left over consecrated hosts taken care of?
   Are they reserved in something similar to our tabernacles?
   Would people show the same signs of reverence (genuflect/bow/adore/speak) to the Eucharist as they would to Jesus - since it truly is Him?
3. I have not yet read the entire document you referenced. I noticed the date was 1979.
   I am wondering if it was ever officially approved by the Church (by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and/or Pope John Paul II)?
   Unless it received their sanction, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that the Catholic Church upholds the positions expressed in the document. (For example, the originally signed Joint Declaration on Justification had to carry amendments before it received Papal approval.)

Hi Nita-

Speaking as one from the non-conservative side. In answer to your first question, I think Jon’s views accurately reflect Lutheran teaching as I have been taught in the Confessions and as is practiced in my congregation.

In answer to question #2, in my congregation, what elements remain that are not taken to the homebound are immediately consumed. So when all is said and done there is nothing left to store or venerate.