NewGuy101
27th March 2008, 09:33 PM
This is posted in the main section but I decided to post it here as well to get a faster response since I got noting in the main forum.
This is the definition of the Lutheran Doctrine of the Lords Supper known as consubstantiation. According to all the sources I gathered this means
Thus, the bread, appearing as bread, was seen to be both bread and the body of Jesus, rather than seeing the bread as not bread but as the body of Jesus. The same was true of the wine. In Consubstantiation the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus instead of becoming the actual blood of Jesus. The change from Trans- to Con- is the key to seeing the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus. The prefix Trans- says that a change took place, the bread actually became the body of Jesus and the wine actually became the blood of Jesus. The prefix Con- says that the bread does not become the body of Jesus but co-exists with the physical bread so that the bread is both a bread and the body of Jesus. The same thing is true of the wine. It does not become the blood of Jesus, but co-exists with the wine so that the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus.
In this way, the make-up of the host central to the worship service is seen as approaching reality since the physical property of the bread and wine do not change, the bread tastes like unleavened bread, not flesh and the wine tastes like wine, not blood. However these two essential elements, the flesh and the blood, remain as co-existing elements with the bread and wine so that the teaching of Jesus, in Matthew 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24, can be properly observed. Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some other liturgical Christian denominations (Episcopal and Lutheran as examples). Even amongst these groups, consubstantiation is not universally accepted.http://www.gotquestions.org/consubstantiation.html
Is this accurate? If so what does it mean that the the bread co-exists with the body of Christ? Does it have to do with philosophy in the sense that in its material aspect the bread is bread but in essence the bread is God's body?
I've also went to the LMCS website and saw that they rejected the title consubstantiation. Why is this? Is their view different? If so why? and what is it?
This is the definition of the Lutheran Doctrine of the Lords Supper known as consubstantiation. According to all the sources I gathered this means
Thus, the bread, appearing as bread, was seen to be both bread and the body of Jesus, rather than seeing the bread as not bread but as the body of Jesus. The same was true of the wine. In Consubstantiation the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus instead of becoming the actual blood of Jesus. The change from Trans- to Con- is the key to seeing the bread and wine as the body and blood of Jesus. The prefix Trans- says that a change took place, the bread actually became the body of Jesus and the wine actually became the blood of Jesus. The prefix Con- says that the bread does not become the body of Jesus but co-exists with the physical bread so that the bread is both a bread and the body of Jesus. The same thing is true of the wine. It does not become the blood of Jesus, but co-exists with the wine so that the wine is both wine and the blood of Jesus.
In this way, the make-up of the host central to the worship service is seen as approaching reality since the physical property of the bread and wine do not change, the bread tastes like unleavened bread, not flesh and the wine tastes like wine, not blood. However these two essential elements, the flesh and the blood, remain as co-existing elements with the bread and wine so that the teaching of Jesus, in Matthew 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-24, can be properly observed. Consubstantiation is held by some Eastern Orthodox churches, and some other liturgical Christian denominations (Episcopal and Lutheran as examples). Even amongst these groups, consubstantiation is not universally accepted.http://www.gotquestions.org/consubstantiation.html
Is this accurate? If so what does it mean that the the bread co-exists with the body of Christ? Does it have to do with philosophy in the sense that in its material aspect the bread is bread but in essence the bread is God's body?
I've also went to the LMCS website and saw that they rejected the title consubstantiation. Why is this? Is their view different? If so why? and what is it?