question on "consubstantiation"

[LittleLambofJesus]

I haven't seen many threads here concerning "Consubstantiation" though I did find a closed thread on it here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7313853/
why consubstantiation?

My question is, how many denoms of Christianity believe in this compared to "transubstantiation"?
Thank you

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Drat! I just realized I posted this thread on the wrong board
Could a mod move it to the appropriate board? Thanks

Sacramental/Ordinance Theology - Christian Forums
Sacramental/Ordinance Theology

 

[Mr Dave]

Mod-Hat On

Thread Moved to Sacramental/Ordinance Theology.

Mod-Hat Off​

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Consubstantiation is sometimes used to describe the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper. However, most Lutherans disagree with the term because it, like transubstantiation, tries to use philosophical reasoning to describe what is more appropriately called either the Real Presence or Sacramental Union in Lutheran theology. The Lutheran Sacramental Union is seen as a parallel to the personal union of God and human nature in Jesus, so that when one takes communion, he eats and drink Christ's body & blood and bread & wine.

Brian (former LCMS elder, now Eastern Orthodox)

 

[Mr Dave]

Don't think I'm quite consubstantiation, although Real presence yes. Good thread, look forward to hearing what people have to say. I've lent my useful books out (which word what I think better than I could say on my own) though.

 

[R_A]

Consubstantiation and Luther's Sacramental Union are often confused. As far as I understand it, they're different, thusly:

First we need to define transubstantiation: this doctrine argues that the bread physically changes into Jesus' skin, fatty tissue and cells; and you bite into that, although it still tastes like bread to the deluded senses. There are several problems with that -- the disjunction between what the object is supposed to be and what our senses say it actually is; the moral problems with cannibalism; and the Scriptural problems, forgetting the fact that Jesus rose on the third day, whole, and went to God forever.

Consubstantiation is a modification of the above Catholic doctrine, by arguing that the bread is still present in 'the bread'. This removes a disjunction between the purported item and our perceptions of it. They argue that the bread is still there, and the body of Jesus, with his veins, skin, and tissues, is also in it at the same exact time, mystically.

The Sacramental Union is a different view altogether. It argues that the Eucharist is not the body of Jesus at all. That what is present in the bread is the immaterial spirit of God, and that is what you consume with the physical bread. When people have gone back to the Bible after a thousand years, they saw that there's actually no reason to claim that the literal body, with the veins and tissues, is present in the bread; this was a Catholic addition. The actual, purely Scriptual doctrine speaks about some kind of presence in the bread, and also says that Jesus rose whole. There were clearly no skin missing or chewed off on the side. Also at the Last Supper, did Jesus let the Disciples take a bite out of his body? Emphatically no!

We begin to see the irreconcilable problems with both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, and it's a relief that the Scripture had not commanded anything like that at all. When we go to the pure Scripture, we see that it taught no cannibalistic moral conundrum whatsoever. God was present in the sacrament spiritually, there was no cannibalism of Jesus' body, and there were no Scriptural problems with why he rose whole on the third day. The Sacramental Union seems to me the only sensible and moral doctrine.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The Sacramental Union is a different view altogether. It argues that the Eucharist is not the body of Jesus at all. That what is present in the bread is the immaterial spirit of God, and that is what you consume with the physical bread. When people have gone back to the Bible after a thousand years, they saw that there's actually no reason to claim that the literal body, with the veins and tissues, is present in the bread; this was a Catholic addition. The actual, purely Scriptual doctrine speaks about some kind of presence in the bread, and also says that Jesus rose whole. There were clearly no skin missing or chewed off on the side. Also at the Last Supper, did Jesus let the Disciples take a bite out of his body? Emphatically no!

No. The Sacramental Union states the Eucharist is a union of the actual body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine. It's compared to the Hypostatic Union in that in the same way that Christ is God and Man distinct, but not separate; united, but unconfused so is the Eucharist the ordinary bread and wine and truly Christ, body and blood, flesh and all. It is Jesus Christ, in the flesh, crucified and risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God the Father and who will come again.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[sensational]

Consubstantiation is sometimes used to describe the Lutheran view of the Lord's Supper. However, most Lutherans disagree with the term because it, like transubstantiation, tries to use philosophical reasoning to describe what is more appropriately called either the Real Presence or Sacramental Union in Lutheran theology. The Lutheran Sacramental Union is seen as a parallel to the personal union of God and human nature in Jesus, so that when one takes communion, he eats and drink Christ's body & blood and bread & wine.

Brian (former LCMS elder, now Eastern Orthodox)

Hi Brian,
Was there one issue that stood out in your decision to become EO?

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Sensational,
Originally I had learned about the Orthodox church back in college in the late 80s, as I have a BA in Religious Studies. After college, I kept learning more about Eastern Orthodox and really grew to respect their theology even though I was LCMS. However, by the late 90s, I noticed that the LCMS churches in the Cincinnati area had all begun to leave the historic liturgies that I had grown up with, and were headed towards the "praise band" services. During this same period, the more I studied early church fathers, the more I began to see a separation of what I call the "philosophical approach" of East and West. The West tends to create a "legal" framework to the faith, i.e. Christ died to satisfy the justice of God, Christ's merits are applied to us, etc. The Eastern fathers kept a "medical" framework such as Christ as the great physician, the Eucharist as the medicine of immortality.
Theologically, I was starting to have problems not just with the Lutheran view but with the entire Western view. In practice, I couldn't stand the praise band stuff and "Bible studies" being devoted to pop-culture books like "Who Moved My Cheese" (Im not kidding there!).

Finally, things came to a head on a Sunday where we had a praise band with the drum set in front of the altar, the sermon "Milk, Does a Body Good" was preceeded by the pastor running to the kitchen to get a glass of milk. Suddenly for Communion, we switched back to the 1941 hymnal setting. The jolt from an evangelical service to a historic liturgy was too much for me and my wife to take anymore. We walked out and within a month I had resigned as an elder.

We started visiting the various Orthodox churches in Cincinnati and found a small Greek church about 5 miles from our house. After attending one service there, my wife told me, "that's the one, that is HOME!". We were chrismated in the spring of 2002.

The Lutheran church is still very dear to my heart as that is where I and my wife both had been baptised, raised and married in. But even after a couple of years of heck in the Orthodox church back in 2006 to 2008, I still could never see myself as being anything but Orthodox now.

Brian

 

[MrPolo]

First we need to define transubstantiation: this doctrine argues that the bread physically changes into Jesus' skin, fatty tissue and cells

This is factually incorrect. There is no physical change. The empirical properties of bread and wine remain. Our bodies are not "fooled." We do not metabolize human tissue. The bread is changed ontologically. That's the part of the word "substance" refers to---what the thing is ontologically. Thus, transubstantiation is a change at the ontological level. The species of bread and wine remain.

CCC#1413 By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity (cf. Council of Trent: DS 1640; 1651).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

<snip>
Finally, things came to a head on a Sunday where we had a praise band with the drum set in front of the altar, the sermon "Milk, Does a Body Good" was preceeded by the pastor running to the kitchen to get a glass of milk. Suddenly for Communion, we switched back to the 1941 hymnal setting. The jolt from an evangelical service to a historic liturgy was too much for me and my wife to take anymore. We walked out and within a month I had resigned as an elder.
Brian

I had a post on that exact thing on another thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t7528162-28/#post56561198

Milk does the "body" good

Young) 1 Peter 2:2 as new-born babes the word's pure milk desire ye, that in it ye may grow,

 

[Tangible]

No. The Sacramental Union states the Eucharist is a union of the actual body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine. It's compared to the Hypostatic Union in that in the same way that Christ is God and Man distinct, but not separate; united, but unconfused so is the Eucharist the ordinary bread and wine and truly Christ, body and blood, flesh and all. It is Jesus Christ, in the flesh, crucified and risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God the Father and who will come again.

-CryptoLutheran

As usual, CL is correct.

Consubstantiation | Define Consubstantiation at Dictionary.com
consubstantiation

- 4 dictionary results
con·sub·stan·ti·a·tion

&#8194; &#8194;[kon-suh

b-stan-shee-ey-shuh

n]
–noun Theology. the doctrine that the substance of the body and blood of Christ coexist in and with the substance of the bread and wine of the Eucharist.


Origin:
1590–1600; < Neo-Latin consubstanti&#257;ti&#333;n- (stem of consubstanti&#257;ti&#333, equivalent to con- con- + (trans)substanti&#257;ti&#333;n- transubstantiation

—Can be confused:&#8194;consubstantiation, transubstantiation.


Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011.
Cite This Source |
Link To consubstantiation


World English Dictionary
consubstantiation (&#716;k&#594;ns&#601;b&#716;stæn&#643;&#618;&#712;e&#618;&#643;&#601;n) —n 1. the doctrine that after the consecration of the Eucharist the substance of the body and blood of Christ coexists within the substance of the consecrated bread and wine 2. the mystical process by which this is believed to take place during consecration

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source
Word Origin & History

consubstantiation
1590s, from Mod.L. consubstantionem, noun of action from consubstantiare, from con- "with" + substantia (see substance).

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source


Encyclopedia
consubstantiation
doctrine of the Eucharist affirming that Christ's body and blood substantially coexist with the consecrated bread and wine. The term is unofficially and inaccurately used to describe the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence; namely, that the body and blood of Christ are present to the communicant "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine. Consubstantiation differs radically from the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, which asserts that the total substance of bread and wine are changed into the substance of the body and blood of Christ at the moment of consecration in such a way that only the appearances of the original elements remain.

Learn more about consubstantiation with a free trial on Britannica.com.

 

[Tangible]

The main views on the Real Presence break down something like this:

T-sub and C-sub are ways of attempting to explain the real presence.

T-sub says that there is no real bread and real wine left after consecration, only Body and Blood. The elements have changed completely.

C-sub says that real bread and wine are still there, but they are either changed into different substances that are bread-Body and wine-Blood, or that interspersed within the particles of bread is the Body and within the particles of wine is the Blood.

Sacramental Union is not an attempt to explain how the real presence works, but is simply a confession that just as Jesus said, the bread is the Body and the wine is the Blood. This is understood to be a mystery similar to the doctrine of the hypostatic union, that is, that Jesus Christ is both 100% God and 100% Man.

There is also an aberrant theology within Lutheranism known as Receptionism that states that the bread and wine are not truly the Body and Blood until they are received into the mouth of the faithful communicant. This is contrary to the orthodox Lutheran view that it is the Word of God in the Words of Institution that bring about the presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord in the bread and wine.

 

[MrPolo]

T-sub and C-sub are ways of attempting to explain the real presence.....

consubstantiation
doctrine of the Eucharist affirming that Christ's body and blood substantially coexist with the consecrated bread and wine. The term is unofficially and inaccurately used to describe the Lutheran doctrine of the Real Presence; namely, that the body and blood of Christ are present to the communicant "in, with, and under" the elements of bread and wine.

Can you elaborate on how consubstantiation is something that attempts to "explain" the real presence, yet using the phrase "in, with, and under" or "sacramental union" does not? And would you elaborate on how consubstantiation would take away the "mystery" of the Eucharist, yet saying "in, with, and under" or "sacramental union" does not?

 

[Tangible]

Can you elaborate on how consubstantiation is something that attempts to "explain" the real presence, yet using the phrase "in, with, and under" or "sacramental union" does not?

"In, with, and under" and "sacramental union" are not detailed investigations into how the real presence works, but have always been intentionally vague statements simply relating the fact that the real presence exists.

And would you elaborate on how consubstantiation would take away the "mystery" of the Eucharist, yet saying "in, with, and under" or "sacramental union" does not?

I don't remember saying that. The fact is that we have absolutely no idea how the real presence works since God in his wisdom has not seen fit to reveal it to us in holy scripture. C-sub and T-sub exceed scripture and are based on human efforts to explain a divine reality, and very well could be (or might not be) simply wrong. We have no way of knowing. Anyone who says differently is probably pushing an agenda.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Can you elaborate on how consubstantiation is something that attempts to "explain" the real presence, yet using the phrase "in, with, and under" or "sacramental union" does not? And would you elaborate on how consubstantiation would take away the "mystery" of the Eucharist, yet saying "in, with, and under" or "sacramental union" does not?

Others have answered this very well; I have little to add.

Our "Sacramental Union", and "in, with, and under" are not explanations; rather, these are a confession of faith in what Scripture tells us. How and what happens are not explained to us. That is a mystery. All we know for certain is that we do eat bread and wine, while at the same time, we eat and drink Christ's body and blood.

Now be mindful that what is most important in all of this is that we do eat Christ's body and drink His blood, and receive our Lord's grace in doing so.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Gee the Lutheran view sounds close to what I believe as an Anglican.

 

[MrPolo]

Our "Sacramental Union", and "in, with, and under" are not explanations; rather, these are a confession of faith in what Scripture tells us. How and what happens are not explained to us.

"In, with, and under" and "sacramental union" are not detailed investigations into how the real presence works, but have always been intentionally vague statements simply relating the fact that the real presence exists.

Same response to both of you.

Neither is consubstantiation a detailed investigation into how the real presence works, nor is it an "explanation" of "how it works." Lutherans I've heard try to differentiate their teaching from consubstantiation with the same statements---i.e. it's not an "explanation," yet there is no engagement as to why one is and the other is not. Consubstantiation tells us no more or less than "in, with, and under" or "sacramental union." I can just as easily assert that sacramental "union" tries to "explain" the Eucharist. But on what basis? And on what basis do you assert that consubstantiation is an explanation and "in, with, and under" and "sacramental union" is not? I have only seen the assertion repeated now that the question was asked.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Same response to both of you.

Neither is consubstantiation a detailed investigation into how the real presence works, nor is it an "explanation" of "how it works." Lutherans I've heard try to differentiate their teaching from consubstantiation with the same statements---i.e. it's not an "explanation," yet there is no engagement as to why one is and the other is not. Consubstantiation tells us no more or less than "in, with, and under" or "sacramental union." I can just as easily assert that sacramental "union" tries to "explain" the Eucharist. But on what basis? And on what basis do you assert that consubstantiation is an explanation and "in, with, and under" and "sacramental union" is not? I have only seen the assertion repeated now that the question was asked.

Consubstantiation implies a co-equal distribution of both the bread and wine, and Christ's body and blood. This we do not know, nor should we presume such.

Man made words used to discribe what is divine often fall short. Scripture, while God inspired, uses man made words; words which as we know are taken so many different ways by so many different people. This is not God's fault, but rather the result of our flawed human nature. We try and read into things what we want to see. Which is why we study, read, and re-read, Scripture as we strive to understand God's divine will; expressed in human terms; with our limited human understanding.

Consubstantiation falls very short, Transubsubstantiation falls even shorter in the light of Scripture, Sacramental Union falls short too, but at least does not conflict with Scripture.

Back to the quantitative question. We don't know, we have no idea, we have the opinions of men, nothing more.

In my Pious opinion, the bread and wine are the smallest, most insignificant portion of the Eucharist; when I ponder the Grace, the forgivness, the blessings that are imparted through this Holy Blessed Sacrament in a most glorious, blessed, and mysterious way. Christ's body and blood are the Eucharist.

Pax Domini,
Mark

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

No. The Sacramental Union states the Eucharist is a union of the actual body and blood of Christ with the bread and wine. It's compared to the Hypostatic Union in that in the same way that Christ is God and Man distinct, but not separate; united, but unconfused so is the Eucharist the ordinary bread and wine and truly Christ, body and blood, flesh and all. It is Jesus Christ, in the flesh, crucified and risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God the Father and who will come again.

-CryptoLutheran

Well stated....


Thank you!




.