Transubtantiation and Alchemy?

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
CONsubstantiation was one of the several Eucharistic theories invented by Western Medieval Roman Catholic "Scholastics", all of which were originally mocked but one of which (Transubstantiation) eventually became popular but when Luther rejected it, the RC denomination decided to dogmatize it (albeit a bit after Luther's death).
Thank you Josiah, but I do not yet know what consubstantiation means. Can you give a definition?
Lutherans hold to "Real Presence." It is the view that simply accepts what Jesus said and Paul penned. No denials, no deletions, no substitutions. IS = is. BODY = body. BLOOD = blood. FORGIVENESS = forgiveness. And "bread" and "wine" (mentioned more after the consecration than before) are not in any sense denied. All this is accepted by faith. All this is accepted as "mystery" rather than subjecting God to wrong, pagan, pre-science theories. Lutherans reject Catholic and Zwinglian efforts to deny what the texts state and to change it to something that "jibes" with what they think is actually possible for God and what fits with the pop (but wrong) physics concepts of the medieval world.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Who do you know who believes in consubstantion? Pleas don't day Lutherans cuz it ain't so.
I've read enough here to know that neither the bread nor blood are physically real, but the mystical "real presence" is actual. At least that's what the Lutherans here claim.
Now, everybody believes that God is always present (omnipresent), but the Lutherans try to blend in a bit of Rome rather than let the Lord's Supper be in remembrance.
In either case, RC or LC, you have a bit of alchemy going on where none exists.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
'Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is enacted'

"The sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion"

"it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth"
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
'Whenever the commemoration of this sacrifice is celebrated, the work of our redemption is enacted'

"The sacrifices of the Old Law contained only in figure that true sacrifice of Christ's Passion"

"it was necessary that the sacrifice of the New Law instituted by Christ should have something more, namely, that it should contain Christ himself crucified, not merely in signification or figure, but also in very truth"
What scripture did that come from?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What scripture did that come from?

The first is from saint Thomas Aquinas
The second from saint John Chrysostom
The third ... I'll need to check the sources again :)

SOD-0913-SaintJohnChrysostom-790x480.jpg


Saint John Chrysostom
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Not scripture then and no backing for this, I would call it tradition then
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Not scripture then and no backing for this, I would call it tradition then

That is right, everything that you and I wrote here in CH that is not a quote from holy scripture is a tradition but some traditions are more enduring than others and some are true while others are not.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I've read enough here to know that neither the bread nor blood are physically real, but the mystical "real presence" is actual. At least that's what the Lutherans here claim.

Well, it isn't.

Consubstantiation (as opposed to Transubstantiation): Con means with, therefore bread, wine, body, and blood all are present and real. It is not the case that the bread and wine cease to exist (as in the RC belief). No substance is changed into a different one.










.
 
Last edited:

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Well, it isn't.

Consubstantiation (as opposed to Transubstantiation): Con means with, therefore bread, wine, body, and blood all are present and real. It is not the case that the bread and wine cease to exist (as in the RC belief). No substance is changed into a different one.










.
Still alchemy.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Consubstantiation (as opposed to Transubstantiation): Con means with, therefore bread, wine, body, and blood all are present and real. It is not the case that the bread and wine cease to exist (as in the RC belief). No substance is changed into a different one..



IF we strip the entire philosophical construct of Consubstantiation of all its meaning, all its history, all the theory it contains and conveys.... yes, simply looking at the word (and ignoring how the word has been used for nearly 1000 years in Christian theology) it is possible to use it simply to mean that Christ's Body and Blood are really present and so are the bread and wine - a view Lutherans would accept since Lutherans accept what Jesus said and Paul penned. However, that ignores and evades all the word means. It was a theory invented at the same time and by the same people who invented Transubstantiation and is yet another philosophical theory to explain the HOW and WHERE of real presence, which Lutherans do not discuss (preferring to believed and accept the words Jesus said and Paul penned). Luther stressed we accept all this as MYSTERY and embrace NO pagan philosophical or pre-science theories (of which Consubstantiation is one, one that along with Transubstantiation was originally rejected and mocked but unlike Transubstantiation eventually fell from use... it is associated only with Catholics).



Yes, on 4 occasions in his life, Luther used the words "in" or "with" or "under" (including in the Small Catechism) however Luther and the Lutheran Confessions and Fathers all boldly rejected Consubstantiation, Transubstantiation and all the other attempts to replace Christian mystery with secular philosophy and prescience theories. He simply was forced to distance himself from the pop Catholic theory of the day (not yet official, certainly not yet dogma - that happened suddenly at Trent, a bit after Luther's death). Luther gives no significance to the bread and wine but unlike the medieval Roman Catholic "Scholastic" theory of Transubstantiation, did not deny their full reality and did not declare that Jesus and Paul are wrong to mention them (more often after the Consecration than before, according to St. Paul). Luther places ALL the emphasis on the Body and Blood - which are present because the meaning of is is is and what comes after the is is. This he accepts just as stated (NO subjecting to wrong, pagan philosophies or wrong pre-science concepts) without any denials of any of the words, any limitations of any of the words, no corrections of any of the words BUT Luther needs to distance the Real Presence view from the Transubstantiation theory which of course argues that "is" doesn't mean is and that what comes after the "is" isn't necessarily, and is based on the mandate that we accept a certain understanding of HOW all this happens (alchemy's whole point of Transubstantiation) and why Jesus and Paul didn't mean to say "bread" and "wine" after the Consecration but rather "an Aristotelian Accident of bread and wine." There are Lutherans (including me) who regret Luther 4 times in his life used one or more of those words to distance himself from the pagan, prescience of theories of Alchemy and Aristotle (he should have done what he did the zillions of other times he spoke of this - simply affirm Real Presence) but he did. Four times in his life.... clearly not t support the Catholic theory of Consubstantiation (which he condemned) but to distance himself from the then theory (not yet official teaching) often found in Catholicism, Transubstantiation.



Again, Luther's position is that what Jesus said and Paul penned is TRUE and not to be denied or corrected. It's ALL accepted - as MYSTERY, with no subjecting to wrong, pagan, secular philosophical or prescience ideas. IS = is. Body = body. Blood = blood. Forgiveness = forgiveness. And there's no reason to accuse Jesus and Paul of error (and correct them) for simply saying that bread and wine mean bread and wine. No, Lutherans don't "explain" the HOW of this, the PHYSICS of all of this (by dogmatizing wrong, pagan, secular theories or otherwise), they just accept and believe. It's called "Real Presence." Luther was opposed to dogmatizing the central alchemic view of Transubstantiation or the Aristotlian idea of accidents (and this was not the case until after his death), rather he held we should rather accept and believe what Jesus said and Paul penned... even though we don't understand the physics involved but have a miracle and mystery here, one hearts should believe rather than doubt and correct.



Luther considered the pop THEORY (in his day) of Transubstantiation not only unnecessary but dangerous: it is founded on the view that "is" doesn't mean "is" (Present, existing, real) but rather CHANGED from one reality into another via the precise, technical physics mechanism of an alchemic Transubstantiation) , and that what follows the "is" therefore isn't necessarily - we have to pick and choose when something "is" and "isn't" and this employ's Aristotle's very weird theory about accidents to deny half of what comes after the "is." Of course, Zwingli would soon do the exact same thing as the RC denomination - deny that "is" means "is" (he'd change it not to "change...." but to "symbolizes") and following the lead of the RCC, also would reject the full meaning of half of what follows the "is" (in his case, he denies the body and blood as REALLY, fully being there whereas the RCC denied the bread and wine REALLY, fully being there - same/same). Luther feared the approach here... and Zwingli proves he had good reason to. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "The Roman Church would not leave well enough alone" and "The Roman Church insists on messing things up."



- Josiah




.




.
 
Last edited:

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Transubstantiation is not alchemy. Alchemy is about changing the accidents - that is to say, the properties - of base elements into the accidents of precious noble elements; it was about changing lead into gold and things like that.
 

pinacled

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,862
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Non-Denominational
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Medieval Roman Catholic "Scholasticism" was a movement to try to merge Christianity with pagan philosophy (including the "science" of that day, which was not science as we think of it but philosophy) - especially to "explain away" mystery. And they wanted to "verify" Christian teachings by showing that pagan philosophy supports it.

ONE of the many topics was the question of HOW Christ becomes present in the Eucharist and WHY the properties do not significantly increase (after all, the bread should be larger and heavier if it is Christ). How to explain all this VIA the pop, secular, pagan, pre-science ideas and philosophies of the day. All a quest of these RC "scholastics" who could not and would not "leave well enough alone" (as my Greek Orthodox friend puts it) and who rejected the idea of the Sacraments as MYSTERY and instead saw them as manifestations of pagan philosophy.

Those "Scholastics" came up with several theories - ALL originally condemned (even mocked). But one continued nonetheless - Transubstantiation. The word used for this in Latin does NOT simply mean "change" in some general sense. As I understand it, there are a few Latin words that do indicate some generic change (words at times used by ECF) but the word these Western RCC "Scholastics" used was a very rare technical word taken from alchemy (all the rage at the time), to mean the specific 'change' that happens as a result of alchemy. It's a specific change.

Alchemy was actually a very broad and diverse collection of WEIRD, wrong, pagan, pre-science ideas - more than the "let's turn lead into gold" that we all learned in Middle School science. But there was that key sense of a CHANGE that happens BECAUSE of alchemy, because certain "elements" as they were called (don't confuse that with the modern science definition) are manipulated by man - including by incantations (there is a certain "magic" in alchemy). The very rare, very technical word "Transubstantiation" refers to that.

These Western RCC "scholars" taught that's what happens at the Consecration... the priest has this POWER of magic, he says the magical words, and poof - TRANSUBSTANTIATION happens as a result. Magic replacing mystery.... priest (at least in part) replacing Christ as the one making this happen. Again, there had been ECF who spoke of a generic, mysterious, "change" (to what is present - the REAL PRESENCE view, and at times, ECF also meant to the "elements" themselves) but this was mysterious, divine, and very generic. But these Western Medieval RCC "Scholastics" went much further - nope, it's alchemy. This, they felt, actually gave it substantiation since all assumed alchemy to be true. Of course, eventually, alchemy was proven to be mostly false but by then the RCC had made it Dogma.

Of course, all this created a problem: In alchemy, Transubstantion changes what WE"D today call 'properties.' You can prove it is now GOLD because it has all the properties of gold and not of the original lead. By switching all this to alchemy, they gave the idea that Christ is present the "stamp of approval" of alchemy but also created a problem - it thus should look and taste like meat and blood (and some actually claimed it really does - faithlessness keeping us from sensing that). How to solve? Insert another pagan, secular bit of philosophy: Aristotles' absurd idea of "accidents" (the properties of reality can exist after the reality itself has ceased to exist) - the accidents of bread and wine are continuing AFTER the bread and wine have been alchemically converted. A bit like gold having all the properties of the lead it once was. This too was a very popular idea at the time (it was even used to explain ghosts and thunder) but it too was eventually proven to be false so today Catholics often try to redefine this very technical idea, too.


MY view:
Believe what Jesus said and Paul penned. 'IS' 'BODY' 'BLOOD' 'BREAD' 'WINE' 'FORGIVENESS OF SINS." Believe and accept. Even though neither Jesus or Paul chose to give us the physics involved, they left it as a divine miracle. Don't dogmatically insist that Jesus and Paul misspoke and need modern science and philosophy to bail them out. Don't delete "is" and replace it with "changed in the very specific, technical sense of an alchemic 'Transubstantion' from bread and wine INTO body and blood leaving behind the Aristotelian Accidents of the bread and wine." Or "SYMBOLI(ZES" the body and blood of Christ but actually isn't." MY VIEW: Believe. Don't change it so that it "jibes" with the pop ideas of our day and seems verified by them. And don't disbelieve by insiting, "but that can't actually be so because my 7th Grade Science teacher said so." Or as my Greek Orthodox friend said, "leave well enough alone." Or as my Lutheran Dogmatics teacher said, "Our job is not to correct God but believe God."




.

It is only a language barrier, nothing more.
If you have any courage, then perhaps you will dismiss Halloween and luther all the same!

Or if you like, You and i could speak about the salt upon the altar and the number of hairs without blemish. If i recall this is a Haven where a Person can visit and Speak of the High Holy Days without interruption.

If not, then perhaps a remedy is needed?
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Transubstantiation is not alchemy. Alchemy is about changing the accidents - that is to say, the properties - of base elements into the accidents of precious noble elements; it was about changing lead into gold and things like that.
...which is to change the substance.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
...which is to change the substance.


... via a very specific, technical, physical process - the foundational point of alchemy which in alchemy is called "Transubstantiation." The RCC was careful to NOT to any of the generic, general words for "change" but the specific word from alchemy. And of course, NORMALLY in alchemy, the properties change too but this obviously doesn't happen in the Eucharist and since these Medieval, Western Roman Catholic "Scholastics" in this one (of several) theories said the bread and wine CHANGED via alchemy so normally the properties would too.... so here they employed another very popular (and wrong) philosophy of the day - Aristotles' weird theory of accidents...the ACCIDENTS of bread and wine continue (but not the bread and wine) AFTER the bread and wine don't (Aristotle used the example of thunder continuing after lightening has discontinued).


So, in this one of the several theories these Medieval, Western, Roman Catholics invented, TWO (wrong) pagan philosophies are embraced: Alchemy's central point of TRANSUBSTANTIATION (alchemy being all the rage in Europe during the middle ages) AND Aristotle's weird philosophy of ACCIDENTS (Aristotle being as esteemed as Jesus in medieval western Europe), both combined to form this particular theory about the Eucharist. It was mocked at the time (as were the other Eucharistic theories they came up with) but eventually caught on. It was not doctrine (or even official teaching) in Luther's day but was popular and often taught. Luther disagreed with it and so the RCC made it dogma (albeit a bit after Luther's death).


Luther rejected this theory invented by these western, medieval, Roman Catholic "Scholastics" not so much because they simply were the embrace of secular, pagan philosophies (rather than anything Christian) - in truth, Luther didn't know the errors of alchemy or Aristotle (although he decried the OBSESSION the RC denomination had with the pagan Aristotle) but because he found this invented theory to be ENTIRELY untextual and unbiblical (and unhistorical) AND because he concluded it undermined if not destroyed any reason to accept Real Presence (which he passionately embraced): After all, if "is" doesn't mean is.... and if what comes after the "is" isn't necessarily, then why accept that Christ's Body and Blood IS present? He concluded the theory destoryed any textual reason for Real Presence and would lead to it's denial.... Zwingli proved Luther was right, since Zwingli simply went down the same exact road: "IS" doesn't mean is.... what comes after the "is" isn't necessarily (we have to choose WHICH things after the "is" are and aren't).

These western, medieval, Roman Catholics probably MEANT to support Real Presence by showing that alchemy and Aristotle affirm and explain it (and they believed alchemy and Aristotle at least as much as God in Scripture). But what they did was destroy any biblical reason to accept Real Presence at all. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "The Roman Church insists on messing things up." "The Roman Church just won't leave well enough alone."



.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
There is a reason it is called Transubstantiation rather than Transaccidentalism, isn't there? :heheh:
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
...which is to change the substance.

It would be transaccidentiation if the result was to change the accidents (properties).
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It would be transaccidentiation if the result was to change the accidents (properties).

Well, my little joke aside, the fact is that this doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is called Transubstantation by all, including the RCC itself, because it is believed that the substance is changed.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Well, my little joke aside, the fact is that this doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is called Transubstantation by all, including the RCC itself, because it is believed that the substance is changed.

Of course it teaches a change of substance; a whole and complete change of substance from the substance of bread & wine to the substance of the body & blood soul & divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ because "this is my body" and "this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood shed for the remission of sins". It is not by using "substance" equivocally with the meaning of the word in English but unequivocally according to the meaning given in the formulation of the dogma.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is like alchemy, then. Alchemy does not purport to make lead look like gold (to cite the popular example already referred to).
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,114
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is like alchemy, then. Alchemy does not purport to make lead look like gold (to cite the popular example already referred to).

In alchemy the aim was to change accidents. That is not what happens in the holy Eucharist.
 
Top Bottom