Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation and Paul

[1689Dave]

Consubstantiation

The Lutheran view is called consubstantiation (or the real-presence or mystical-presence view). After consecration, the bread remains bread and the wine remains wine; however, the real, physical body and blood of Jesus are, as the Lutheran confessions put it, present “in, with, and under” the bread and wine. The bread and wine are not the body and blood of Jesus, but they do contain his body and blood.

Transubstantiation

As to the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, the Roman Catholic view is called transubstantiation: During the Mass, when the priest consecrates the bread, it actually becomes Christ’s physical body, and when he consecrates the wine, it actually becomes Christ’s physical blood.

Aaron, D. (2012). Understanding Theology in 15 Minutes a Day (pp. 187–188). Bethany House Publishers.

Anglican Thomas Chalmers essentially said Christ is in heaven until the day of His return. So He cannot be in the bread and cup. “Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” Acts 3:21 (KJV 1900)

Also, does it mean Christ did not come in the flesh if this is the human flesh he supposedly came in? John says whoever denies that Christ came in the flesh is an Antichrist.

It seems that if anyone should be able to interpret Christ’s difficult passages on the Eucharist, it should be Paul. “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, “that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” 1 Corinthians 11:23–25 (KJV 1900)

Notice He says “this is the New Testament in my blood”. It does not mean the wine changes into the New Testament, it represents the New Testament in his blood on the cross. Nor does it mean that His blood, instead of the New Testament, is present in the wine. A DNA test should not be necessary to prove either, but none are willing to prove what they say is true by using it.

Christ does not say what Transubstantiationists or Consubstantiationists say. He says the bread and cup are for remembrance sake. “This do in remembrance of me”.

Paul in scolding the gluttons from Corinth for abusing the communion service Said: “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” 1 Corinthians 11:26–29 (KJV 1900) The NLT says: “For if you eat the bread or drink the cup without honoring the body of Christ, you are eating and drinking God’s judgment upon yourself.” 1 Corinthians 11:29 (NLT)

 

[Lamb]

Lutherans do not believe in Consubstantiation. There are non-Lutheran websites that might make that claim, but I'm telling you that it's false information.

 

[1689Dave]

Lutherans do not believe in Consubstantiation. There are non-Lutheran websites that might make that claim, but I'm telling you that it's false information.

What do they teach in place of it?

 

[Josiah]

Lutherans and the Eucharist:


The Sacrament of Holy Communion, also known as the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper, may be thought of as “God’s way of hugging us.” Jesus shares the promised blessing: “This is My blood which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28).

While this Sacrament doesn’t play a huge role in Scripture, we know that it did in the earliest church. Christians cherished this Sacrament and included it in their Sunday worship.


Bible...

Let’s carefully look at the relevant Scriptures here…looking carefully at what it says (and doesn’t say)…

Matthew 26:26-29, “While they were still eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is my body.’ Then He took the cup, (wine) gave thanks and offered it to them saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many of you for the forgiveness of sins. I tell, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) again until I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

1 Corinthians 11:23-29, “Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is for you, do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, He took the cup saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, do this, as often as you drink it, remembering me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

What does it state? Bread... wine.... body... blood.... forgiveness of sins. The definitive word seems to be "is"
What does it not say? Not.... cant be.... symbolize.... change.... Aristotle.... transubstantiation.


Real Presence

Historically, this has been one of the most treasured teachings of Christianity. As we look at the Scriptures, a straight forward, “at-face-value” reading of the texts embraces that the meaning of “is” is “is.” Jesus says “This IS my Body… this IS my Blood.”

We believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, fully, “for real” and this is the essence of the doctrine of Real Presence. We accept this “at His word” and as mystery. We don’t attempt to get into the physics of all this (we just don’t go there). We just accept what the texts clearly state and as Christians always believed.

We don’t believe we are being cannibals (an early charge against Christians, showing even non-Christians realized that Christians believed Christ is being received; it’s not figurative) and we realize that it doesn’t look or taste like anything other than bread and wine, but we take Jesus at His word – and leave it at that. And we certainly don't spend time insisting what CAN'T be true, what Jesus said that CAN'T be right. We don’t get into the questions of HOW or WHEN or WHY – we just accept that the word “is” means exists, present, “there.” And when Jesus is there, well lots of good stuff is there!

But while not specifically a part of this doctrine, we do not deny that bread and wine are present, too. As we look at the Scriptures, we see that after the Consecration, we find the realities referred to as bread, wine, body and blood – all FOUR, without any distinction or differentiation, and thus we just accept that all 4 are “real” and “there.” The focus, of course, is entirely on the Body and Blood (so we speak of it as such). It is only the bread and wine that our senses perceive, but our faith perceives much more! The Eucharist is not just bread and wine, it is also Jesus! This is the doctrine of Real Presence.

This view is (mostly by Reformed Protestants) called "Consubstantiation." That view, however, is a Catholic invention during the Middle Ages and associated with Catholic Scholasticism, and thus Lutherans like to avoid it. We like to avoid all "explanations" or dismissals of the mystery. We like to simply echo what Scripture states and the church has believed.

This view is ancient and is doctrine also among Orthodox and Catholic Christians. It sometimes is also embraced by Anglican and Methodist Christians.

Bread = bread
Wine/cup = wine
Is = is (present, existing)
Body = body
Blood = blood.

The Voice of the Early Church Fathers

“The Eucharist is the very flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.” St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his very own flesh and pours out his very blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children.” St. Clement of Alexandra (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

“Do not regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 22:6, 9).[A.D. 350]

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not merely according to their nature. We ought not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord.” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).


Continues in post #6 ...


.

 

[1689Dave]

Lutherans and the Eucharist:


The Sacrament of Holy Communion, also known as the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper, may be thought of as “God’s way of hugging us.” Jesus shares the promised blessing: “This is My blood which is poured out for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28).

While this Sacrament doesn’t play a huge role in Scripture, we know that it did in the earliest church. Christians cherished this Sacrament and included it in their Sunday worship.


Bible...

Let’s carefully look at the relevant Scriptures here…looking carefully at what it says (and doesn’t say)…

Matthew 26:26-29, “While they were still eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat, this is my body.’ Then He took the cup, (wine) gave thanks and offered it to them saying, ‘Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the new covenant which is poured out for many of you for the forgiveness of sins. I tell, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine (wine) again until I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

1 Corinthians 11:23-29, “Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, ‘This is my body which is for you, do this in remembrance of me. In the same way, He took the cup saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, do this, as often as you drink it, remembering me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner is guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself.”

What does it state? Bread... wine.... body... blood.... forgiveness of sins. The definitive word seems to be "is"
What does it not say? Not.... symbolize.... change.... Aristotle.... transubstantiation.


Real Presence

Historically, this has been one of the most treasured teachings of Christianity. As we look at the Scriptures, a straight forward, “at-face-value” reading of the texts embraces that the meaning of “is” is “is.” Jesus says “This IS my Body… this IS my Blood.”

We believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist, fully, “for real” and this is the essence of the doctrine of Real Presence. We accept this “at His word” and as mystery. We don’t attempt to get into the physics of all this (we just don’t go there). We just accept what the texts clearly state and as Christians always believed.

We don’t believe we are being cannibals (an early charge against Christians, showing even non-Christians realized that Christians believed Christ is being received; it’s not figurative) and we realize that it doesn’t look or taste like anything other than bread and wine, but we take Jesus at His word – and leave it at that. And we certainly don't spend time insisting what CAN'T be true, what Jesus said that CAN'T be right. We don’t get into the questions of HOW or WHEN or WHY – we just accept that the word “is” means exists, present, “there.” And when Jesus is there, well lots of good stuff is there!

But while not specifically a part of this doctrine, we do not deny that bread and wine are present, too. As we look at the Scriptures, we see that after the Consecration, we find the realities referred to as bread, wine, body and blood – all FOUR, without any distinction or differentiation, and thus we just accept that all 4 are “real” and “there.” The focus, of course, is entirely on the Body and Blood (so we speak of it as such). It is only the bread and wine that our senses perceive, but our faith perceives much more! The Eucharist is not just bread and wine, it is also Jesus! This is the doctrine of Real Presence.

This view is (mostly by Reformed Protestants) called "Consubstantiation." That view, however, is a Catholic invention during the Middle Ages (a more simply version of Transubstantiation) associated with Catholic Scholasticism, and thus Lutherans like to avoid it.

This view is ancient and is doctrine also among Orthodox and Catholic Christians. It sometimes is also embraced by Anglican and Methodist Christians.

Bread = bread
Wine/cup = wine
Is = is (present, existing)
Body = body
Blood = blood.

The Voice of the Early Church Fathers

“The Eucharist is the very flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again.” St. Ignatius of Antioch (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his very own flesh and pours out his very blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children.” St. Clement of Alexandra (The Instructor of Children 1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

“Do not regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith.” St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 22:6, 9).[A.D. 350]

“When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood’; for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements] after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit not merely according to their nature. We ought not regard [the elements] merely as bread and cup, but as the body and blood of the Lord.” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1 [A.D. 405]).


Continues in next post....


.

Where's your DNA proof?

 

[Josiah]

Lutherans and Holy Communion
Continues from post # 4



The Newer Catholic View….

Real Presence was the view from the earliest Christians, and is still the doctrine among Lutheran, Orthodox and many Anglican and some other Christians. And it’s still doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church eventually introduced another concept called “Transubstantiation.” Technically, the unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation (1551) does not replace Real Presence (since, again, Real Presence is simply the affirmation that Christ is literally present) but adds to it.

The Catholic Dogma of Transubstantiation in a sense rejects 2 of the 4 realities spoken of in the biblical texts – the bread and the wine. Transubstantiation states the bread and wine were converted into the body and blood (in a very specific sense and way) and thus cease to exist in any real or full sense (Catholicism says they exist only as an “Aristotelian Accidents”); the Catholic Church now speaks only of the “appearance” of bread and wine “remaining” but insists that the bread and wine are not really, fully “there.” The bread and wine were “transubstantiated” into the Body and Blood of Jesus.

Transubstantiation was a common view but not dogma in Luther’s day, one that Luther and the Luther fathers did not embrace. Lutherans and Catholics agree (passionately!) on Real Presence but disagree on Transubstantiation. Lutherans find this view to be textually baseless (again – the Bible says “is” not “converts” and the Bible speaks equally of FOUR things after the Consecration – Body, Blood, bread and wine). Lutherans find this to be a classic case of just going too far, applying too much human “stuff’. It does nothing to affirm Real Presence (indeed, it might undermine it).

Lutherans simply don’t get into scientific or philosophical theories here (much less make them dogma). We simply embrace that what is said is true: “IS…. BODY, BLOOD, BREAD, WINE… FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS.” We just accept that. All of that. As mystery. Letting God have the last word.


The Newer Protestant View...

Transubstantiation requires a split interpretation of the texts whereas 2 realities are accepted and 2 aren't (they are taken figuratively, essentially explained away) in spite of no textual indication for such a distinction. The 16th Century reformer Zwingli did the very same thing, only embracing the bread and wine and not the body and blood, requiring the same split interpretation of the texts, the same need to explain away 2 of the 4 things the Bible specifically states of after the Consecration.

Zwingli argued that since Jesus is in heaven, He can’t be here (revealing a misunderstanding of the Two Natures of Christ). So, he argued, Jesus obviously cannot be present in the Sacrament. What He (and Paul) literally said cannot be possible. It violated his (wrong) view of the Two Natures of Christ and his “science” view of reality. Thus, since Christ would be wrong if He literally meant what He said, He must have meant it figuratively. Not only does this opinion violate Scripture but also 1500 years of Christian faith and belief. It's a view Zwingli invented because he felt what Jesus said simply cannot be true.

Many modern “Evangelical” Protestants (especially in the US) eventually embraced Zwingli’s view. It affirms the bread and wine are “real” but the Body and Blood are not; the Body and Blood are “present” only in some symbolic or figurative sense.

While Lutherans find the new Catholic essential denial of the bread and wine as pretty irrelevant (they don’t really matter), we find the typical Zwinglian/Evangelical/Protestant denial of the Body and Blood much more troubling – Jesus does matter! Lutherans believe we should leave it as the glorious mystery the Bible presents, letting God have the last word. It doesn’t matter if our brains can explain things scientifically. What matters is that our faith embraces the Mystery of Christ’s presence. Lutherans stick with the ancient, biblical affirmation of Real Presence – adding or subtracting nothing from it.


Real Blessings!


Besides the obvious blessing of Christ’s presence, we also receive the assurance of His love, presence and forgiveness! Where Christ is present, blessing is present!

“What blessings do we receive through this eating and drinking? That is shown us by these words: ‘Given’ and ‘poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins.’ Through these words we receive forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation in this sacrament. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.” [Luther’s Catechism. Holy Communion. Second.] “How can eating and drinking do such things? It is certainly not the eating and drinking that does such things, but the words ‘Given’ and ‘poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins.’ These words are the main thing in this sacrament, along with the eating and drinking. And whoever believes these words has what they plainly say, the forgiveness of sins.” [Luther’s Catechism. Holy Communion. Third.]




.

 

[1689Dave]

Any DNA?

 

[Josiah]

Lutherans and the Eucharist
Continues from post #6


One might summarize the 3 common views this way:


Real Presence: Is.... Body..... Blood..... bread..... wine....... All are true, all are affirmed. It's mystery.
Affirmed by Orthodox, Catholic, Lutherans and some others. The original view.

Transubstantiation: Body.... Blood..... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the bread and wine actually aren't, they are Aristotelian Accidents instead. It's an alchemic transubstatiation.
Catholic Medieval invention, sometimes taught from 1215, doctrine since 1551.

Symbolic: Bread.... Wine.... THEY are true and affirmed, but "is" doesn't mean that and the Body and Blood actually aren't, they are symbols instead. It's metaphor.
16th Century Invention of Zwingli. Common in many Protestant groups.



- Josiah


.

 

[1689Dave]

Contunues

I like your volumes that try to explain this. I worked with some LCMS guys and even they felt intimidated when the subject came up.

 

[Albion]

The Newer Catholic View….

Real Presence was the view from the earliest Christians, and is still the doctrine among Lutheran, Orthodox and many Anglican and some other Christians.

Correct, but let's just make that read like this: "is still the doctrine among...and Anglicans."

And it’s still doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, but the Catholic Church eventually introduced another concept called “Transubstantiation.” Technically, the unique Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation (1551) does not replace Real Presence (since, again, Real Presence is simply the affirmation that Christ is literally present) but adds to it.

Nicely explained.

Transubstantiation was a common view but not dogma in Luther’s day, one that Luther and the Luther fathers did not embrace.

I think Transubstantiation was made official in the Roman Catholic Church in 1215.

The Newer Protestant View...

Zwingli argued that since Jesus is in heaven, He can’t be here (revealing a misunderstanding of the Two Natures of Christ). So, he argued, Jesus obviously cannot be present in the Sacrament. What He (and Paul) literally said cannot be possible. It violated his (wrong) view of the Two Natures of Christ and his “science” view of reality. Thus, since Christ would be wrong if He literally meant what He said, He must have meant it figuratively. Not only does this opinion violate Scripture but also 1500 years of Christian faith and belief.

Many modern “Evangelical” Protestants (especially in the US) eventually embraced Zwingli’s view. It affirms the bread and wine are “real” but the Body and Blood are not; the Body and Blood are “present” only in some symbolic or figurative sense.

While Lutherans find the new Catholic essential denial of the bread and wine as pretty irrelevant (they don’t really matter), we find the typical Zwinglian/Evangelical/Protestant denial of the Body and Blood much more troubling – Jesus does matter! Lutherans believe we should leave it as the glorious mystery the Bible presents, letting God have the last word. It doesn’t matter if our brains can explain things scientifically. What matters is that our faith embraces the Mystery of Christ’s presence. Lutherans stick with the ancient, biblical affirmation of Real Presence – adding or subtracting nothing from it.

But one more thing perhaps. The reason that Lutherans are said to be believers in Consubstantiation is because they describe their theory just as you did--by rearranging the quasi-scientific Roman Catholic statement/belief in order to deny Transubstantiation. That is to say, you describe what happens -- or does not happen -- with the bread and wine, and also how the body and blood of Christ relate to it, BUT in a way that denies the purely Roman doctrine of Transubstantiation.

By contrast, the Anglican POV is that the communicant receives the true body and blood of Christ when consuming the bread and wine. That's it. (In other words, it's the understanding which was held by the first century church).

 

[1689Dave]

How do you think this teaching would hold up in a court of Law? With today's technology waiting to prove it wrong?

 

[Josiah]

How do you think this teaching would hold up in a court of Law? With today's technology waiting to prove it wrong?

@1689Dave


Do you think the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus or the divinity of Jesus would hold up in a secular court of law? With today's technology?

John 20:29, "Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”




.

 

[Albion]

Do you think the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus or the divinity of Jesus would hold up in a secular court of law? With today's technology?

Well, our friend has either hinted at, or outright denied, both of those teachings in earlier posts of his, so that may explain the somewhat odd nature of his approach here and now.

 

[Josiah]

Well, our friend has either hinted at, or outright denied, both of those teachings in earlier posts of his, so that may explain the somewhat odd nature of his approach here and now.

@Albion


He DOES seem to have a curious approach to Scripture and theology: To quote Scripture and put a "NOT" in front of proclamations it makes. He seems to see that invisible "not" almost everywhere. It all seems to boil down to what "CANNOT" be true according to his all wise, smarter-than-God, estimation of himself. Fortunately, he doesn't take that as far as the agnostic but he's on that tract. I pray (I mean that), he'll step back... stop swallowing whole and without thought the radical websites he's reading... and accept Scripture and the historic Christian faith.

Jesus had words for the "doubting Thomas."


Blessings on your Advent season!!


- Josiah


.

 

[Faith]

Where's your DNA proof?

You don’t know very much about theology, do you?

 

[Faith]

How do you think this teaching would hold up in a court of Law? With today's technology waiting to prove it wrong?

You do realize that there are Lutheran and Catholic lawyers don’t you?

 

[1689Dave]

You do realize that there are Lutheran and Catholic lawyers don’t you?

Yes and it remains a mystery that as smart as they are, they would accept anything scripture does not explicitly teach. You cannot find this in scripture. Only their interpretation of scripture that doesn't square with Paul's teaching on the matter.

 

[1689Dave]

You don’t know very much about theology, do you?

Enough to know better than this.

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave


Do you think the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus or the divinity of Jesus would hold up in a secular court of law? With today's technology?

John 20:29, "Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”




.

But scripture says so about the miracles. And because of this our faith verifies it. But your interpretation of Christ's words will not produce faith because He didn't say what you make him out to say. Paul, on the other hand, explains it correctly producing faith in the heart. Faith comes from hearing the word, not ideas about what it says.

 

[Lamb]

This is my body. Jesus said that.
This is my blood. Jesus said that too.

Things Jesus did not say...this is like my body. This represents my blood. Etc.