question on "consubstantiation"

[MrPolo]

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.

I do not see why we should accept that is the implication. The etymology of the word begins with con--which means "with." There is nothing in the term about equality of distribution. To relate it to a modern term with the same etymology, ordering "chips con queso" from your favorite Mexican restaurant does not imply there will be an equal distribution of chips and cheese. So I think the part in your prior post that elaborated on that was unfounded--a criticism of something that the term does not assert.

The Lutheran description includes "in, with, under." Consubstantiation refers to things "with" one another. So if anything, I would think the Lutheran criticism of the term should be that consubstantiation is accurate, but only partially accurate because it leaves out the "in" and "under" parts.

As I also said in the other thread, even Luther's friend Melanchthon described the presence as "substantial." Therefore, I think the Lutheran explanations for rejecting the term consubstantiation have been here inadequate. Definitions not native to the word have been assigned to it, and that alien definition is then torn down.

So I feel I have no choice but to believe that consubstantiation, when taken at its etymological value, is at least a partially accurate term to describe the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist. But that has not been the reaction I have received thus far, although you saying in the last post that it "falls short" is the closest I have seen to date. Every other Lutheran criticism I've seen of the term either gives it a new definition, claims that it is somehow an "explanation" while simultaneously holding that "in, with, and under" is not an explanation, or turns the conversation into a rejection of transubstantiation. And I feel none of those are good defenses.

 

[Tangible]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I do not see why we should accept that is the implication. The etymology of the word begins with con--which means "with." There is nothing in the term about equality of distribution. To relate it to a modern term with the same etymology, ordering "chips con queso" from your favorite Mexican restaurant does not imply there will be an equal distribution of chips and cheese. So I think the part in your prior post that elaborated on that was unfounded--a criticism of something that the term does not assert.

Thanks for your response. You are correct in your assertion of the meaning; the co-equality of distribution is exactly how reformed protestants have interpereted it (when they try and tell me what I believe).

The Lutheran description includes "in, with, under." Consubstantiation refers to things "with" one another. So if anything, I would think the Lutheran criticism of the term should be that consubstantiation is accurate, but only partially accurate because it leaves out the "in" and "under" parts.

So, if something is partially accurate, then it is also partially in-accurate; correct?

As I also said in the other thread, even Luther's friend Melanchthon described the presence as "substantial." Therefore, I think the Lutheran explanations for rejecting the term consubstantiation have been here inadequate. Definitions not native to the word have been assigned to it, and that alien definition is then torn down.

So I feel I have no choice but to believe that consubstantiation, when taken at its etymological value, is at least a partially accurate term to describe the Lutheran understanding of the Eucharist. But that has not been the reaction I have received thus far, although you saying in the last post that it "falls short" is the closest I have seen to date. Every other Lutheran criticism I've seen of the term either gives it a new definition, claims that it is somehow an "explanation" while simultaneously holding that "in, with, and under" is not an explanation, or turns the conversation into a rejection of transubstantiation. And I feel none of those are good defenses.

The word consubstantiation is inadequate, and partially accurate means partially inacurate. Using Consubstantiation to describe what happens in the Eucharist therefore makes no sense, no more sense than it would if it were used to explain the dual natures of Christ regarding His body Easter moring.

Transubstantiation, from our POV of testing all doctrine with scripture is even less so. Scripture tells us that when we eat and drink the Eucharist, we do eat bread and wine, and we do eat Christ's body and blood... at the same time... therefore the "Divine Mystery" of "Sacramental Union" is the best fit with Scripture.

Let's be mindful that since the "Age of Enlightenment" mankind has had a desire to explain everything. Likewise, outside Lutheranism, reformed protestantism has, and continues to employ "human reason" to explain that which we can not.

Luther said regarding the Blessed Sacrament that "it is what it is"; God said "I am". While our human nature can not fully understand either, through faith given by the Holy Spirit; we can accept both.

God bless.

 

[MrPolo]

The word consubstantiation is inadequate, and partially accurate means partially inacurate.

Ok then---inaccurate insofar as it does not include all attributes. So do we agree that neither "consubstantiation" nor "in with under" nor "sacramental union" are explanations? (In this thread I'm not discussing Transubstantiation and if it jibes with Scripture, btw. )

 

[Tangible]

As I understand it, according to C-sub, if you could place a piece of consecrated bread under an electron microscope, you should be able to point to individual atoms or molecules that are the body of Jesus.

Accurate or not, this is a common understanding of Consubstantiation, and this is one of the reasons Lutherans reject it.

 

[MrPolo]

As I understand it, according to C-sub, if you could place a piece of consecrated bread under an electron microscope, you should be able to point to individual atoms or molecules that are the body of Jesus.

Accurate or not, this is a common understanding of Consubstantiation, and this is one of the reasons Lutherans reject it.

I think that's one of those fictional definitions assigned to the term that I talked about...

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ok then---inaccurate insofar as it does not include all attributes. So do we agree that neither "consubstantiation" nor "in with under" nor "sacramental union" are explanations? (In this thread I'm not discussing Transubstantiation and if it jibes with Scripture, btw. )

I'd say that's a fair statement. More of a discription of what, and only what is revealed to us in Scripture. Consubstantiation is an attempt at an explanation, and is not an accurate description; see Tangibles post quoted below. Such a leap ammounts to adding to Scripture.

As I understand it, according to C-sub, if you could place a piece of consecrated bread under an electron microscope, you should be able to point to individual atoms or molecules that are the body of Jesus.

Accurate or not, this is a common understanding of Consubstantiation, and this is one of the reasons Lutherans reject it.

BTW, I used Transubstantiation as a comparator and as an example of another, somewhat paralel example of adding to Scripture.

I think that's one of those fictional definitions assigned to the term that I talked about...

The original sin in Eden; eating from the tree of knowlege, is still being repeated to this day. We desire to know things that are known only to God; we formulate elaborate, reasoned explanations for God's Divine Mysteries, when all God desires of us is unquestioning submission to His will and "faith".

"In, with and under", "real presense" and "Sacramental Union" are not attempts to explain these mysteries; but a discription of the mystery itself, as revealed to us in God's Holy Word!

 

[MrPolo]

Consubstantiation is an attempt at an explanation

Ok, then we do not agree. I do not think Consubstantiation is any more of an "attempt" or whatever at an "explanation" than "in, with, under" or "sacramental union."

Would you say in the battle against the Arian heresy, that it was proper for the early Church to use homoousios to describe the Trinity? Just curious...no long discussion wanted...this thread is winding down.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ok, then we do not agree. I do not think Consubstantiation is any more of an "attempt" or whatever at an "explanation" than "in, with, under" or "sacramental union."

Would you say in the battle against the Arian heresy, that it was proper for the early Church to use homoousios to describe the Trinity? Just curious...no long discussion wanted...this thread is winding down.

Well, this is not completly off topic, as we were discussing "terminology".
Homoousios, or as we translate it "being of one substance with" is about as close as we are going to get with human words to expressing a Divine Mystery.

I believe that it would be impossible to "justify" any of the three Creeds based on reason; after all each of the Creeds is a confession of faith in the great mysteries of faith, from creation to life everlasting. While men's words can not fully reveal God, and our minds can not fully comprehent God; the Holy Spirit continues to lead us to faith. That's enough for me.

 

[MrPolo]

Well, this is not completly off topic, as we were discussing "terminology".
Homoousios, or as we translate it "being of one substance with" is about as close as we are going to get with human words to expressing a Divine Mystery.

I believe that it would be impossible to "justify" any of the three Creeds based on reason; after all each of the Creeds is a confession of faith in the great mysteries of faith, from creation to life everlasting. While men's words can not fully reveal God, and our minds can not fully comprehent God; the Holy Spirit continues to lead us to faith. That's enough for me.

Ok. Do remember though that the Bible is written in human language as well.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ok. Do remember though that the Bible is written in human language as well.

It is, and full of many mysteries; which is why mankind continues to study God's Word. Scripture tells us everything that God wills us to know; that is, everything that we need to know. It does not tell us everything that we want to know, which is why gnosticism is no substitute for faith.