Consubstantiation vs Transsubstantiation

[HumbleMan]

I hope I spelled those right

Reading Chester's thread on the Real Presence, I realized that I really don't know the difference between the two.

Can someone explain to me what they mean?

Thanks!

 

[Melethiel]

Technically defined, transubstantiation teaches that the "substance" of the elements changes completely to the Body and Blood, while the "accidents" (appearance) remains that of bread and wine. Consubstantiation teaches that the "substance" of both bread and the Body exist next to each other. There is no denomination that I am aware of, however, that holds to Consubstantiation.

 

[Sphinx777]

Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio) is the change of the substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occuring in the Eucharist according to the teaching of some Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, while all that is accessible to the senses remain as before. In Greek it is called μετουσίωσις ...


Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine that (like transubstantiation) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present...

​

 

[narnia59]

Technically defined, transubstantiation teaches that the "substance" of the elements changes completely to the Body and Blood, while the "accidents" (appearance) remains that of bread and wine. Consubstantiation teaches that the "substance" of both bread and the Body exist next to each other. There is no denomination that I am aware of, however, that holds to Consubstantiation.

I thought that consubstantiation was the Lutheran view?

If not, could you explain the Lutheran doctrine please?

 

[BigNorsk]

The Lutheran View is probably best called the sacramental union.

We believe that Christ's body and blood are really present, not just spiritually present since scripture calls them the body and blood.

We also believe that the bread and wine are still present because scripture still refers to them after the institution.

We use terms like "in" "under" and "with" to describe the sacramental union but it is not to try to be precise, it is to stick with the type of union that scripture describes.

We do not know that for instance Christ's body is united with the bread making them one which would be consubstantiation. We know the body is present we know the bread is present, we don't know in what type of union they are.

You see we do believe in consubstantiation, Christ is an example, fully God and fully man united in one person. We could also say Jesus is consubstantial with the Father since they are one.

See the problem? We are not told that the union of the bread and body are like the union of God and man in Christ. To say the bread and body are consubstantial goes beyond scripture.

Much of the usage of consubstantiation came from the Roman insistance of have a single Latin word to debate and describe the union. Of all available Latin words, consubstantial was probably the best and so it was pretty much always used by Rome to describe what Lutherans believed and even used by some Lutherans, which does continue to this day, but the word is really too precise, going beyond what is taught by scripture.

Hope that explains it.

Marv

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Lutheran View is probably best called the sacramental union.

We believe that Christ's body and blood are really present, not just spiritually present since scripture calls them the body and blood.

We also believe that the bread and wine are still present because scripture still refers to them after the institution.

We use terms like "in" "under" and "with" to describe the sacramental union but it is not to try to be precise, it is to stick with the type of union that scripture describes.

We do not know that for instance Christ's body is united with the bread making them one which would be consubstantiation. We know the body is present we know the bread is present, we don't know in what type of union they are.

You see we do believe in consubstantiation, Christ is an example, fully God and fully man united in one person. We could also say Jesus is consubstantial with the Father since they are one.

See the problem? We are not told that the union of the bread and body are like the union of God and man in Christ. To say the bread and body are consubstantial goes beyond scripture.

Much of the usage of consubstantiation came from the Roman insistance of have a single Latin word to debate and describe the union. Of all available Latin words, consubstantial was probably the best and so it was pretty much always used by Rome to describe what Lutherans believed and even used by some Lutherans, which does continue to this day, but the word is really too precise, going beyond what is taught by scripture.

Hope that explains it.

Marv

Very well done. Thank you, Marv!


The term "consubstantiation" is another Catholic Scholastic theory, and Lutherans reject all these philosophical attempts to explain away the mystery and union, thus is simply "too much." Now, IF all of this is forgotten and the term is used to mean NOTHING MORE than "Body and Blood WITH bread and wine" then it's probably valid. But I think most Lutherans avoid the Catholic term because we are aware of it's theological meaning FAR beyond what we are saying.


Thanks again.




Pax



- Josiah




.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

see and carefully read this explanation of Transubstantiation for better comprehension thereof:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm#section3

 

[phoenixgw]

Which would this be?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23894438-2,00.html

 

[Melethiel]

Which would this be?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23894438-2,00.html

That's disgusting.

 

[BigNorsk]

That would be an example of the crude Capernaic understanding that was often foisted upon Christians.

Marv

 

[tz620q]

The Lutheran View is probably best called the sacramental union.

We believe that Christ's body and blood are really present, not just spiritually present since scripture calls them the body and blood.

We also believe that the bread and wine are still present because scripture still refers to them after the institution.

Since this seems to have evolved from a consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation thread to what Lutheran's and Catholic's view about the real presence, I would like to interject another difference between the two groups. The Catholic's see the change from bread and wine happening at the moment of the consecration by the priest and remaining forever as body and blood of Christ. When do you view this change occuring? Do you view the change as permanent or only temporary?

 

[BigNorsk]

It doesn't really matter what moment things happen. We aren't told that, what we are told is "this is my body" and "this is my blood" at that point there is not reason to call Jesus a liar but simply to have faith. Who cares at what moment it occurs.

Marv

 

[tz620q]

It doesn't really matter what moment things happen. We aren't told that, what we are told is "this is my body" and "this is my blood" at that point there is not reason to call Jesus a liar but simply to have faith. Who cares at what moment it occurs.

Marv

For me it matters because we treat simple bread and wine differently from the body and blood of Christ. Reading your post, I see you reference what we call the words of consecration, "this is my body", "this is my blood". Our priests, acting in persona christi, pronounce these words to mark the moment of transformation. This transformation is instantaneous and permanent. Viewing the Real Presence in this way, it is impossible to insert a symbolic meaning into the act. Christ is substantially and eternally present. It is not a matter of the strength of faith or sinlessness of the priest or the faith or sinlessness of the communicant. The promise of Christ to be present within his new Covenant is kept through the grace of God, not the efforts of man. Please take what I have said as merely a humble exposition on Catholic belief, not as any criticism or call to debate. In actuality, the Lutheran and Catholic beliefs on this matter are closer enough to have a cordial discussion filled mostly with agreement.

God's Grace be ever with you.